do you have any idea how complicated the rules system for MTG is? It's not like ticking a checkbox adding in a plugin into word. The official MTGO program basically IS the rules system, that's the most difficult part of what the program does by FAR.
Point is.... Magic Online is NOT being hurt by Cockatrice.
Basic economics. If I sell Good A and you provide a substitute for free, even if inferior, I will sell less of Good A. There is no arguing around this.
Basic economics. If I sell Good A and you provide a substitute for free, even if inferior, I will sell less of Good A. There is no arguing around this.
I don't think that necessarily applies here, because that theory assumes you are losing business to the substitute, and in this case that seems highly unlikely
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EDH Decks:
:symb:Seizan, Perverter of Truth:symb:
:symu:Kami of the Crescent Moon:symu:
:symr:Tahngarth, Talruum Hero:symr:
:symu::symg:Prime Speaker Zegana:symu::symg:
:symu::symr:Melek, Izzet Paragon:symu::symr:
I tell you what. If Hasboro wants to do something smart, hire the dude that made Cockatrice. Charge $10 a month across the board for the exact same thing, but improve the UI, let it use the rules system and hell, I'd pay for it and not even feel ripped off... MMOS, which I don't play anymore are $15 a month, and overall, on average, between the people that have their cards already on MTGO and never buy more product and the people that play limited, I bet you'd a) make more money and b) attract even MORE Magic players to use the service and the GAME
Something to consider~
I'd actually wager they could charge substantially more than the above. They could use a buy-in price for the base game (similar to MMOs) and then, instead of a monthly cost, simply include additional sets as "DLC" content. They could have an established $60 base cost for the game, and then $40 every 3 months for the newest set (possibly offer a $120 for a year's worth of sets, putting it at your suggest $10/month fee). They could have the base game include a certain limited range of cards as well (all of standard/extended), which could then be upgraded with 'modern' package and/or 'legacy' packages, that would expand the card access farther backwards. With a minimal amount of effort they could cajole substantial sums of money out of players who are interested in such a tool.
do you have any idea how complicated the rules system for MTG is? It's not like ticking a checkbox adding in a plugin into word. The official MTGO program basically IS the rules system, that's the most difficult part of what the program does by FAR.
However, you realize that a large portion of that code already exists and will continue to be written for MTGO regardless of any other projects. This means that if they were able to share the 'rules' code between MTGO and this alternative project, they could substantially reduce coding costs. If they were particularly smart, they could simply incorporate this desired utility into MTGO, offering a 'proxy testing' component. By doing so, they could also allow for decklists to be shared between your proxy-testing and MTGO, which could easily reveal which cards you'd need to purchase to complete your deck. The proxy-testing portion could exist with minimal player support, meaning no tournaments or anything of that sort. This could also serve as a gateway toward getting players to playing MTGO in the first place. They could also consider offering players who purchased proxy-play access some sort of discount for MTGO-play, be it a few half-price drafts or a free tournament entry paid, or any number of other discount notions that would encourage players to spend more on MTGO cards.
Finally, this could serve to bring the community together in once place, as currently players who play online may be split across multiple programs (MTGO, Cockatrice, and others which I'll not name as to bring more attention to them). Consolidation of the community encourages players to become more passionate about the game, more passionate means more willing to spend money.
Basic economics. If I sell Good A and you provide a substitute for free, even if inferior, I will sell less of Good A. There is no arguing around this.
This is a fair theory, but the practicality is far different. I'd argue that Paper Card and MTGO play are substantially different products than players are seeking cockatrice for. Players using this program are looking for an affordable way to test decks without investment required in that testing. If Hasbro offered the any of the suggested above alternatives to MTGO as a method for playtesting MTG, then you'd have a very valid case.
However, the situation is far more complex than that even. The fact that players are able to playtest their decks without absurd costs associated with them allows for the idea of playtesting to actually incorporate a broader section of the playerbase. If programs like cockatrice and others are removed, some players could simply lose the willingness to play at all - if you remove the ability for affordable playtesting, you will see more players pull away from MTG. Simply put, this product may well actually increase players spending by allowing them to feel more assured of their card purchases which encourages them to shell out more money than they would if they were unsure of their choices.
I will not sit here and pretend that cockatrice and similar products may well be illegal and I do not contest Hasbro's rights in this scenario, however I do condemn their methodology as bad business and bad for the game. Even now, Hasbro could be 'smart' about this and simply 'buy out' the rights to cockatrice and associated code in exchange for dropping any other charges, and then produce a similar product. By migrating the cockatrice playerbase to using a Hasbro-produced product, they keep a community and can literally extort players into the notion of 'pay this reasonable price and use a legitimate product with better support, or lose your community'. However, the steep cost of buying individual cards as the only alternative to cockatrice and other cockatrice-like programs, will simply push people to another program if cockatrice ends up shut down. The people writing such programs are likely judgement-proof (as in, they don't have enough money to cover the lawyer costs of the suit in most cases, much less pay any 'damages'). This whole move serves to alienate a substantially portion of the playerbase for the game as well. MTGO thrives because of how many people play, if that number of players began dropping for any reason the value of the game as a whole may well plummet.
Short version: this is a complication situation and with my currently available information, I cannot believe that this action is profitable and could end up having the opposite of the desired effect if they're not careful.
I don't think that necessarily applies here, because that theory assumes you are losing business to the substitute, and in this case that seems highly unlikely
It is extremely likely. The principle is call elasticity.
The more two products have in common, the more elastic that product is. The more elastic a product is, the less consumers will pay. It's why gas stations all charge the same prices for gas within a penny or two: a gallon of gas is a gallon of gas. It's a perfectly elastic product, so consumers will choose based on price. No on goes to Exxon to get gas because it's "Exxon gas", they go because they save 2 cents per gallon.
MTGO and Cockatrice are highly elastic when compared to each other. Like any other elastic product, consumers will chose the cheaper option. This is basic first semester microeconomics stuff.
I'd actually wager they could charge substantially more than the above. They could use a buy-in price for the base game (similar to MMOs) and then, instead of a monthly cost, simply include additional sets as "DLC" content. They could have an established $60 base cost for the game, and then $40 every 3 months for the newest set (possibly offer a $120 for a year's worth of sets, putting it at your suggest $10/month fee). They could have the base game include a certain limited range of cards as well (all of standard/extended), which could then be upgraded with 'modern' package and/or 'legacy' packages, that would expand the card access farther backwards. With a minimal amount of effort they could cajole substantial sums of money out of players who are interested in such a tool.
THAT would definitely make me use MODO. Unfortunately, it's too expensive right now to play both paper and online - I'm not going to buy twice the deck(s) I use IRL.
All of these devices are potentially infringing (even putting aside the DMCA which explicitly deals with this type of thing in the US), and in fact the maker of one such chip (Sony region coding) was sued in Australia (case). This applies for all sorts of things - libraries and universities which provide photocopiers can be held liable if they authorise mass infringement through turning a blind eye, to take a real case example, and how do you think they shut down Napster, Kazaa and other P2P services? Just because someone hasn't yet been sued for something doesn't mean it's not infringement.
I realize that they shut down Napster and Kazaa back in the day, but as far as I can tell, P2P never went away. For the past 10+ years I can remember being able to connect to and use P2P services that offered pirated data.
I mean, have they ever successfully shut down the use of torrents to pirate things?
Even if the program didn't instruct people on how to do mass downloading of gatherer images (which I understand it did), it could still be held liable if the owners were basically providing a service with a nudge and a wink for users to slot the data in to use it, particularly if they knew what their users were doing and did nothing to stop it (all of which would be obvious here).
I'm not making this up, go do some research on "secondary" infringement, or authorisation or facilitation. It's well established legal doctrine.
This sounds reasonable. However, what if the product is simply a shell for "plugins" that enable you to play any card game, either original (user-created) or potentially similar to Magic? In this case, the program has legitimate uses to play user-created collectible card games via plugins provided by the users themselves (distributed separately from the main site). Say a rogue developer creates a plugin that uses Magic:the Gathering data and distributes it separately from the website that provides the shell program. Despite many legit uses, can the court decide that the maker of the shell program is still responsible for the infringing activity of the users who are playing with the rogue plugin?
In this case, the makers of the program may in theory know that it is possible to use MtG-like plugins, but make no mention of it whatsoever on their website and make no reference to it in the shell program, and actually provide plugins for original, more basic, CCGs and strictly endorse only these on the website. The rogue plugin that downloads from gatherer.wizards.com (images and card data) is completely separate and say, distributed on a torrent by the users of the plugin.
Shouldn't it be possible for a person to create a shell program that allows people to play made-up CCGs of their choice via plugins without worrying about its ability to play MtG? That would be like Sony suing a company that makes Radio Kits because a user could put together a radio that looks and acts like a Walkman if he provided a few extra parts.
Looks like I'm late to the party. I only found out about this when I decided to see if there were expansion updates. Well, this kind of sucks. I guess it's time to revert back to MWS then, yeah?
It is extremely likely. The principle is call elasticity.
The more two products have in common, the more elastic that product is. The more elastic a product is, the less consumers will pay. It's why gas stations all charge the same prices for gas within a penny or two: a gallon of gas is a gallon of gas. It's a perfectly elastic product, so consumers will choose based on price. No on goes to Exxon to get gas because it's "Exxon gas", they go because they save 2 cents per gallon.
MTGO and Cockatrice are highly elastic when compared to each other. Like any other elastic product, consumers will chose the cheaper option. This is basic first semester microeconomics stuff.
We are not talking about the same thing here. Many people that use Cockatrice are paper players. They are still spending the money on the Magic the Gathering economy...they are just more informed before they do it by being able to playtest beforehand. Yes there were people doing draft on there, but those required a third party tool, it was not in cockatrice itself. Asking the MTG population to invest in the same cards twice is kind of absurd, especially when there is no desire to create a second digital collection...all that is wanted is to bolster our paper collection with informed decisions.
I've been playing since beta, and this is one of the first things ive seen them do (other than a bad block here or there, mirrodin-affinity &kami's stale format for ex) that actually has me fearing for the playerbase of the game. I used tools like these (cockatrice, et all) to help get my friends into the game. DotP is great for like 5 games then people wanna tinker with their decks, DotP locks your land count making for some really wonky situations. People dont want restrictions. Cockatrice bridged that gap nicely. Rebuild the deck on cockatrice and we'll play some games after the kid goes to sleep. Great when we cant get together. Then after tweaking a deck for a bit they want it in paper. And the nerd cycle propogates...
Some of us are old enough to remember when the first P2P system came online, as other companies followed a similar model (content on demand) the entire business was born. Napster as a paid service was pretty much a flop, but iTunes, netflix, pandora, hulu (which started as an illegal service) are all doing pretty well.
If the Hasbro overlords are smart they will let WotC keep calling the shots. They know their playerbase (ok d&d 4.0 was bad news bears for WotC, as tons of players/writers jumped ship for pathfinder) and generally make good decisions for the business (maintaining the reserve list was pretty dumb imho)
The result is the most robust playerbase in magics history, we're happy, Hasbro stockholders are happy.
Dont get greedy, look what happened to the recording industry. People dont like to watch individuals that make a really good product (mtgdeck forge for android, cockatrice, etc) get attacked by swarms of lawyer/sharks, just to have the product under question never get replaced or replaced with a really bad equivalent (WotC's MTG app im looking at you. **** iVersion, no android support)
I still use deckforge and it stopped being updated after innistrad (c&d from wotc)
Apple has tried litigating everything that even resembles infringement, and its only alienated their users and driven more into the arms of their competition. Magic doesnt really have any competition, but we have enough ragequits already.
All this makes me wonder how many pros (have admitted to) play(ing) on Cockatrice (regularly enough to prefer it over other MTG simulators). Come on, there has to be at least one...
If you look at my new sig. That pretty much sums up how I feel at the moment!!!
Keep in mind it's Hasbro who is making claims against cockatrice not WOTC. either way if you hate WOTC/Hasbro why do you play the game?
The best thing to do is just for cockatrice to shut down their operations so neither have to go to court. Then when dragons maze is released and there is no patch cockatrice will become obsolete.
The best thing to do is just for cockatrice to shut down their operations so neither have to go to court. Then when dragons maze is released and there is no patch cockatrice will become obsolete.
Patching Cockatrice for DGM consists of 4 lines of code....you sound like a Hasbro lawyer. There is a big difference between legal/illegal and right and wrong. Sometimes when you flex your muscle you end up punching yourself in the face.
Okay, could everyone cut the things about Cockatrice being good or bad? It will make the thread close. And if everyone didn't notice, this thread is already derailed since the real subject is about Cockatrice receiving a C&D letter, not about it being good or bad. Or do you want me to ask a mod to stop all this useless talk about good or bad?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Casual crazy magic player, otaku maniac, unrully cosplayer, what did you expect me to be?
I don't think the discussion is so much about Cockatrice being good/bad, nor Hasbro being good/bad.
The discussion is focused on how the C&D Letter will effect the health of the game. Cockatrice and similar programs have played a pivotal role in our digital age to establish an active community that is willing to invest in their hobby. Lacking the ability to playtest may have Hasbro's desired effect (more people blindly spending money on MTGO cards in order to test deck ideas online). However, I sincerely doubt this is a logical conclusion. Those who cannot afford to maintain paper and virtual collections simultaneously will not suddenly lose interest in their hardcopies, nor will they suddenly be able to spend twice as much money on their hobby. When faced with a situation in which they can:
-No longer playtest virtually - confidence in purchases drops, desire to spend money drops, value of MtG cards is reduced
-Must split their purchases between online and offline - they're spending the same amount of money with a lower level of satisfaction, as they will struggle to construct decks in either format
-May simply decide to abandon the hobby
-May simply seek out alternative online programs; however in doing so the community of players established at Cockatrice is still dashed, meaning that players will likely 'lose friends', even if they are online friends/acquaintances. When people have friends that are interested in a hobby, their personal interest and willingness to invest in that hobby is heightened. When those friendships are forcefully endangered via elimination of their shared platform, consumer interest and confidence is reduced.
The above listed theories are only that, theories - but none of them bode well for the game. The only way in which this turns out to be a healthy solution for MtG is if it was coupled with a Hasbro-produced alternative, as described in prior posts. Without that alternative, this action has little chance of influencing Hasbro's profit margin in a positive manner and could well play a role in reducing those profits via a correlated reduced interest and buyer confidence in the game as a whole.
It is extremely likely. The principle is call elasticity.
The more two products have in common, the more elastic that product is. The more elastic a product is, the less consumers will pay. It's why gas stations all charge the same prices for gas within a penny or two: a gallon of gas is a gallon of gas. It's a perfectly elastic product, so consumers will choose based on price. No on goes to Exxon to get gas because it's "Exxon gas", they go because they save 2 cents per gallon.
MTGO and Cockatrice are highly elastic when compared to each other. Like any other elastic product, consumers will chose the cheaper option. This is basic first semester microeconomics stuff.
I think you have a pretty poor understanding of how elasticity works, or at least would work in this situation. Additionally, your example of gasoline is pretty off base, and I think it really shows how little you know about basic economics. Gasoline is not an elastic good, the demand is pretty much always constant. It's a lot like toilet paper, people are always going to need toilet paper and there aren't any alternatives. Same applies for gasoline, you can't avoid using gasoline unless you avoid using a car, and the demand is pretty much stable.
There are a number of problems, 1. your idea of MTGO and Cockatrice being highly elastic and I would disagree for a number of reasons. The first of which is that Cockatrice is completely free and has an unlimited supply, the second would be that the demand for MTGO is relatively low and would probably barely increase would Cockatrice be shut down (as it has). Now this is an assumption, but I think it's pretty safe assumption because I haven't seen anyone flocking to MTGO now that cockatrice is down. Another assumption but probably some truth to it, is that cockatrice players are already putting money into magic the gathering, most likely through paper. So despite your ideas of elasticity, I think they're not entirely accurate or at least don't apply to this situation
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EDH Decks:
:symb:Seizan, Perverter of Truth:symb:
:symu:Kami of the Crescent Moon:symu:
:symr:Tahngarth, Talruum Hero:symr:
:symu::symg:Prime Speaker Zegana:symu::symg:
:symu::symr:Melek, Izzet Paragon:symu::symr:
I think you have a pretty poor understanding of how elasticity works, or at least would work in this situation. Additionally, your example of gasoline is pretty off base, and I think it really shows how little you know about basic economics. Gasoline is not an elastic good, the demand is pretty much always constant. It's a lot like toilet paper, people are always going to need toilet paper and there aren't any alternatives. Same applies for gasoline, you can't avoid using gasoline unless you avoid using a car, and the demand is pretty much stable.
There are a number of problems, 1. your idea of MTGO and Cockatrice being highly elastic and I would disagree for a number of reasons. The first of which is that Cockatrice is completely free and has an unlimited supply, the second would be that the demand for MTGO is relatively low and would probably barely increase would Cockatrice be shut down (as it has). Now this is an assumption, but I think it's pretty safe assumption because I haven't seen anyone flocking to MTGO now that cockatrice is down. Another assumption but probably some truth to it, is that cockatrice players are already putting money into magic the gathering, most likely through paper. So despite your ideas of elasticity, I think they're not entirely accurate or at least don't apply to this situation
No he was pretty spot on. Cockatrice is cheaper(free) and MTGO is not. So people are going to choose cockatrice.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not." - John Lennon
No he was pretty spot on. Cockatrice is cheaper(free) and MTGO is not. So people are going to choose cockatrice.
There's more to it than that. MTGO has features that Cockatrice lacks (official tournaments as a major example).
That's like saying rain water is free and faucet water costs money, so people will drink rain water. You're not equating two things of equal quality and value.
What about casual water drinkers? Any casual player given the choice will go for cockatrice. That's still true.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. Good Decks Play With Good Cards
2. Good Decks Have Good Plans
3. Good Decks Have Good Mana Bases
4. Good Decks Respect Their Opponents
5. Good Decks Have 75 Cards
6. Sometimes Even Good Decks Are Bad Choices
7. Sometimes Your 'Good Deck' Isn't
Saying that people playing on cockatrice is the same as people playing on MTGO is just rediculous. Cockatrice is to MTGO what FNM is to a Grand Prix. Cockatrice is where non-professional players go to test the new decks that they've just built to see if it works like they hoped. I mean, we have the Star City tournaments, they may be taking away interest from the Grand Prixs, let's shut them down. I mean MTGO might not be as expensive as going to an official tournament, but it is still more than the average player is going to pay.
Also, I don't know about you all, but for the majority of the people I know, they either play paper magic or magic online. I know only a handful of people that do both.
I think that the purpose of cockatrice is being mistaken to be the same purpose as MTGO. MTGO is for competitive, international play on the computer; cockatrice is meant for casual testing. The target audience for the two mediums isn't really even the same. I think that this falls under mistaken judgement by Hasbaro. On the cockatrice side, I think conceding and just shutting down was the best course of action given the situation, but it is still a shame to see it go.
It's absolutely amazing how many people just don't get it, cockatrice and MTGO are designed for totally different play and people and there is nothing to suggest that players would start playing MTGO with the closure of cockatrice, it seems highly unlikely
What about casual water drinkers? Any casual player given the choice will go for cockatrice. That's still true.
This assumes that those casual players would play MTGO if Cockatrice didn't exist, and I have an incredibly hard time believing that is even remotely true
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EDH Decks:
:symb:Seizan, Perverter of Truth:symb:
:symu:Kami of the Crescent Moon:symu:
:symr:Tahngarth, Talruum Hero:symr:
:symu::symg:Prime Speaker Zegana:symu::symg:
:symu::symr:Melek, Izzet Paragon:symu::symr:
This spate of C&Ds by Hasbro is rather hypocritical of them considering that in the past they've been quite tolerant, if not supportive, of Transformers fan stuff. Granted, Transformers is a bigger media franchise than MTG or My Little Pony, but still.
Not to mention they made EDH an officially supported format, and turned a blind eye towards Magic Set Editor. You'd think after all that they'd be more supportive of fan efforts.
made me lol.
do you have any idea how complicated the rules system for MTG is? It's not like ticking a checkbox adding in a plugin into word. The official MTGO program basically IS the rules system, that's the most difficult part of what the program does by FAR.
I don't think that necessarily applies here, because that theory assumes you are losing business to the substitute, and in this case that seems highly unlikely
:symb:Seizan, Perverter of Truth:symb:
:symu:Kami of the Crescent Moon:symu:
:symr:Tahngarth, Talruum Hero:symr:
:symu::symg:Prime Speaker Zegana:symu::symg:
:symu::symr:Melek, Izzet Paragon:symu::symr:
I'd actually wager they could charge substantially more than the above. They could use a buy-in price for the base game (similar to MMOs) and then, instead of a monthly cost, simply include additional sets as "DLC" content. They could have an established $60 base cost for the game, and then $40 every 3 months for the newest set (possibly offer a $120 for a year's worth of sets, putting it at your suggest $10/month fee). They could have the base game include a certain limited range of cards as well (all of standard/extended), which could then be upgraded with 'modern' package and/or 'legacy' packages, that would expand the card access farther backwards. With a minimal amount of effort they could cajole substantial sums of money out of players who are interested in such a tool.
However, you realize that a large portion of that code already exists and will continue to be written for MTGO regardless of any other projects. This means that if they were able to share the 'rules' code between MTGO and this alternative project, they could substantially reduce coding costs. If they were particularly smart, they could simply incorporate this desired utility into MTGO, offering a 'proxy testing' component. By doing so, they could also allow for decklists to be shared between your proxy-testing and MTGO, which could easily reveal which cards you'd need to purchase to complete your deck. The proxy-testing portion could exist with minimal player support, meaning no tournaments or anything of that sort. This could also serve as a gateway toward getting players to playing MTGO in the first place. They could also consider offering players who purchased proxy-play access some sort of discount for MTGO-play, be it a few half-price drafts or a free tournament entry paid, or any number of other discount notions that would encourage players to spend more on MTGO cards.
Finally, this could serve to bring the community together in once place, as currently players who play online may be split across multiple programs (MTGO, Cockatrice, and others which I'll not name as to bring more attention to them). Consolidation of the community encourages players to become more passionate about the game, more passionate means more willing to spend money.
This is a fair theory, but the practicality is far different. I'd argue that Paper Card and MTGO play are substantially different products than players are seeking cockatrice for. Players using this program are looking for an affordable way to test decks without investment required in that testing. If Hasbro offered the any of the suggested above alternatives to MTGO as a method for playtesting MTG, then you'd have a very valid case.
However, the situation is far more complex than that even. The fact that players are able to playtest their decks without absurd costs associated with them allows for the idea of playtesting to actually incorporate a broader section of the playerbase. If programs like cockatrice and others are removed, some players could simply lose the willingness to play at all - if you remove the ability for affordable playtesting, you will see more players pull away from MTG. Simply put, this product may well actually increase players spending by allowing them to feel more assured of their card purchases which encourages them to shell out more money than they would if they were unsure of their choices.
I will not sit here and pretend that cockatrice and similar products may well be illegal and I do not contest Hasbro's rights in this scenario, however I do condemn their methodology as bad business and bad for the game. Even now, Hasbro could be 'smart' about this and simply 'buy out' the rights to cockatrice and associated code in exchange for dropping any other charges, and then produce a similar product. By migrating the cockatrice playerbase to using a Hasbro-produced product, they keep a community and can literally extort players into the notion of 'pay this reasonable price and use a legitimate product with better support, or lose your community'. However, the steep cost of buying individual cards as the only alternative to cockatrice and other cockatrice-like programs, will simply push people to another program if cockatrice ends up shut down. The people writing such programs are likely judgement-proof (as in, they don't have enough money to cover the lawyer costs of the suit in most cases, much less pay any 'damages'). This whole move serves to alienate a substantially portion of the playerbase for the game as well. MTGO thrives because of how many people play, if that number of players began dropping for any reason the value of the game as a whole may well plummet.
Short version: this is a complication situation and with my currently available information, I cannot believe that this action is profitable and could end up having the opposite of the desired effect if they're not careful.
It is extremely likely. The principle is call elasticity.
The more two products have in common, the more elastic that product is. The more elastic a product is, the less consumers will pay. It's why gas stations all charge the same prices for gas within a penny or two: a gallon of gas is a gallon of gas. It's a perfectly elastic product, so consumers will choose based on price. No on goes to Exxon to get gas because it's "Exxon gas", they go because they save 2 cents per gallon.
MTGO and Cockatrice are highly elastic when compared to each other. Like any other elastic product, consumers will chose the cheaper option. This is basic first semester microeconomics stuff.
THAT would definitely make me use MODO. Unfortunately, it's too expensive right now to play both paper and online - I'm not going to buy twice the deck(s) I use IRL.
I realize that they shut down Napster and Kazaa back in the day, but as far as I can tell, P2P never went away. For the past 10+ years I can remember being able to connect to and use P2P services that offered pirated data.
I mean, have they ever successfully shut down the use of torrents to pirate things?
This sounds reasonable. However, what if the product is simply a shell for "plugins" that enable you to play any card game, either original (user-created) or potentially similar to Magic? In this case, the program has legitimate uses to play user-created collectible card games via plugins provided by the users themselves (distributed separately from the main site). Say a rogue developer creates a plugin that uses Magic:the Gathering data and distributes it separately from the website that provides the shell program. Despite many legit uses, can the court decide that the maker of the shell program is still responsible for the infringing activity of the users who are playing with the rogue plugin?
In this case, the makers of the program may in theory know that it is possible to use MtG-like plugins, but make no mention of it whatsoever on their website and make no reference to it in the shell program, and actually provide plugins for original, more basic, CCGs and strictly endorse only these on the website. The rogue plugin that downloads from gatherer.wizards.com (images and card data) is completely separate and say, distributed on a torrent by the users of the plugin.
Shouldn't it be possible for a person to create a shell program that allows people to play made-up CCGs of their choice via plugins without worrying about its ability to play MtG? That would be like Sony suing a company that makes Radio Kits because a user could put together a radio that looks and acts like a Walkman if he provided a few extra parts.
UAzami, Locus of All KnowledgeU
BMarrow-Gnawer, Crime Lord of ComboB
WBRTariel, Hellraiser StaxWBR
Annul is really good in EDH
We are not talking about the same thing here. Many people that use Cockatrice are paper players. They are still spending the money on the Magic the Gathering economy...they are just more informed before they do it by being able to playtest beforehand. Yes there were people doing draft on there, but those required a third party tool, it was not in cockatrice itself. Asking the MTG population to invest in the same cards twice is kind of absurd, especially when there is no desire to create a second digital collection...all that is wanted is to bolster our paper collection with informed decisions.
Some of us are old enough to remember when the first P2P system came online, as other companies followed a similar model (content on demand) the entire business was born. Napster as a paid service was pretty much a flop, but iTunes, netflix, pandora, hulu (which started as an illegal service) are all doing pretty well.
If the Hasbro overlords are smart they will let WotC keep calling the shots. They know their playerbase (ok d&d 4.0 was bad news bears for WotC, as tons of players/writers jumped ship for pathfinder) and generally make good decisions for the business (maintaining the reserve list was pretty dumb imho)
The result is the most robust playerbase in magics history, we're happy, Hasbro stockholders are happy.
Dont get greedy, look what happened to the recording industry. People dont like to watch individuals that make a really good product (mtgdeck forge for android, cockatrice, etc) get attacked by swarms of lawyer/sharks, just to have the product under question never get replaced or replaced with a really bad equivalent (WotC's MTG app im looking at you. **** iVersion, no android support)
I still use deckforge and it stopped being updated after innistrad (c&d from wotc)
Apple has tried litigating everything that even resembles infringement, and its only alienated their users and driven more into the arms of their competition. Magic doesnt really have any competition, but we have enough ragequits already.
Grammar is the difference between knowing your ****, and knowing you're ****.
People who claim "It's not us that's doing it, it's the users." Loses every time in court to corporate businesses.
Keep in mind it's Hasbro who is making claims against cockatrice not WOTC. either way if you hate WOTC/Hasbro why do you play the game?
The best thing to do is just for cockatrice to shut down their operations so neither have to go to court. Then when dragons maze is released and there is no patch cockatrice will become obsolete.
Patching Cockatrice for DGM consists of 4 lines of code....you sound like a Hasbro lawyer. There is a big difference between legal/illegal and right and wrong. Sometimes when you flex your muscle you end up punching yourself in the face.
The discussion is focused on how the C&D Letter will effect the health of the game. Cockatrice and similar programs have played a pivotal role in our digital age to establish an active community that is willing to invest in their hobby. Lacking the ability to playtest may have Hasbro's desired effect (more people blindly spending money on MTGO cards in order to test deck ideas online). However, I sincerely doubt this is a logical conclusion. Those who cannot afford to maintain paper and virtual collections simultaneously will not suddenly lose interest in their hardcopies, nor will they suddenly be able to spend twice as much money on their hobby. When faced with a situation in which they can:
-No longer playtest virtually - confidence in purchases drops, desire to spend money drops, value of MtG cards is reduced
-Must split their purchases between online and offline - they're spending the same amount of money with a lower level of satisfaction, as they will struggle to construct decks in either format
-May simply decide to abandon the hobby
-May simply seek out alternative online programs; however in doing so the community of players established at Cockatrice is still dashed, meaning that players will likely 'lose friends', even if they are online friends/acquaintances. When people have friends that are interested in a hobby, their personal interest and willingness to invest in that hobby is heightened. When those friendships are forcefully endangered via elimination of their shared platform, consumer interest and confidence is reduced.
The above listed theories are only that, theories - but none of them bode well for the game. The only way in which this turns out to be a healthy solution for MtG is if it was coupled with a Hasbro-produced alternative, as described in prior posts. Without that alternative, this action has little chance of influencing Hasbro's profit margin in a positive manner and could well play a role in reducing those profits via a correlated reduced interest and buyer confidence in the game as a whole.
I think you have a pretty poor understanding of how elasticity works, or at least would work in this situation. Additionally, your example of gasoline is pretty off base, and I think it really shows how little you know about basic economics. Gasoline is not an elastic good, the demand is pretty much always constant. It's a lot like toilet paper, people are always going to need toilet paper and there aren't any alternatives. Same applies for gasoline, you can't avoid using gasoline unless you avoid using a car, and the demand is pretty much stable.
There are a number of problems, 1. your idea of MTGO and Cockatrice being highly elastic and I would disagree for a number of reasons. The first of which is that Cockatrice is completely free and has an unlimited supply, the second would be that the demand for MTGO is relatively low and would probably barely increase would Cockatrice be shut down (as it has). Now this is an assumption, but I think it's pretty safe assumption because I haven't seen anyone flocking to MTGO now that cockatrice is down. Another assumption but probably some truth to it, is that cockatrice players are already putting money into magic the gathering, most likely through paper. So despite your ideas of elasticity, I think they're not entirely accurate or at least don't apply to this situation
:symb:Seizan, Perverter of Truth:symb:
:symu:Kami of the Crescent Moon:symu:
:symr:Tahngarth, Talruum Hero:symr:
:symu::symg:Prime Speaker Zegana:symu::symg:
:symu::symr:Melek, Izzet Paragon:symu::symr:
No he was pretty spot on. Cockatrice is cheaper(free) and MTGO is not. So people are going to choose cockatrice.
There's more to it than that. MTGO has features that Cockatrice lacks (official tournaments as a major example).
That's like saying rain water is free and faucet water costs money, so people will drink rain water. You're not equating two things of equal quality and value.
2. Good Decks Have Good Plans
3. Good Decks Have Good Mana Bases
4. Good Decks Respect Their Opponents
5. Good Decks Have 75 Cards
6. Sometimes Even Good Decks Are Bad Choices
7. Sometimes Your 'Good Deck' Isn't
~Metamorph
Also, I don't know about you all, but for the majority of the people I know, they either play paper magic or magic online. I know only a handful of people that do both.
I think that the purpose of cockatrice is being mistaken to be the same purpose as MTGO. MTGO is for competitive, international play on the computer; cockatrice is meant for casual testing. The target audience for the two mediums isn't really even the same. I think that this falls under mistaken judgement by Hasbaro. On the cockatrice side, I think conceding and just shutting down was the best course of action given the situation, but it is still a shame to see it go.
This assumes that those casual players would play MTGO if Cockatrice didn't exist, and I have an incredibly hard time believing that is even remotely true
:symb:Seizan, Perverter of Truth:symb:
:symu:Kami of the Crescent Moon:symu:
:symr:Tahngarth, Talruum Hero:symr:
:symu::symg:Prime Speaker Zegana:symu::symg:
:symu::symr:Melek, Izzet Paragon:symu::symr:
Not to mention they made EDH an officially supported format, and turned a blind eye towards Magic Set Editor. You'd think after all that they'd be more supportive of fan efforts.
It all smacks of a double standard.
A rather disgusting one.
----------------------------
Club Flamingo Wins: 10
----------------------------
EDH Decks
BG Vicious Varolz | RW Jor Kadeen, the Mean Machine | RG Atarka: Muh_Dragons.dec (WIP) | WU Brago, Blink Eternal (WIP)
----------------------------