The golf analogy is a good one. At lower levels of play, spending more money will materially increase your chances to win.
However, at high levels, it’s assumed that all players have access to all the cards they might want or need (either directly through owning them or through borrowing them via social networks), so it really is a skill game at that point, but with a fairly high price floor. Magic players in professional tournaments play decks without considering the price of the cards, just like golf pros aren’t limited to a golf club budget because any conceivable
But if two people starting out playing Magic with similar skill and one of them has 2-3 times the budget of the other one, the one with more money will have an advantage unless they’re fairly careful to adhere to formats where the play-anything price floor is within both budgets.
I think something like golf or snowboarding gets a pass because the game rules usually are trying as hard as reasonably possible to keep the game egalitarian, short of just assigning the same equipment to everyone. Magic is a card game where cost barriers are more of a choice by the game developers than a necessity.
But the cost barriers don’t apply to the vast majority of the game. The $10,000 cards that get articles written about them are only used in a very narrow segment of the game that exists more as a nod to the game’s history than anything Hasbro/Wizards of the Coast focuses on. At the common player level, it ranges more from “Standard”, where the card selection is limited to in-print (or just out of print but still widely available) cards to formats like Drafting where you literally get your cards randomly on the spot. For a game where a major component of it is the collectible nature of the cards, that feels about as egalitarian as you can get. You could, in theory, make all the cards equally accessible to everyone but then you’re not “collecting”. And there has been numerous attempts at deck building games with set deck libraries for each player but none has proven especially popular (of course, every permutation of physical deck building game has probably been tried at this point).
I know far more about golf than Magic, but you can play golf at an awfully high level w/o needing to update your sticks any more often then every 10 years - maybe every 5 if you go crazy. Suckers think they can buy a game. Good players know they need to take lessons and practice.
When my kid was a kid, he got tired of Magic, because his 2 best friends bought their way into killer decks. Just was no fun for him. And he was nowhere near tournament level. Just a suburban kid. And try to get your geeky friend to agree to NOT use his super cards that he spent his allowance on…
But - that pretty much exhausts my knowledge of - or interest in - Magic.
It’s actually surprisingly similar to the Battlefield 4 system I described in my next post. I’m not exactly sure why one is considered gambling, and the other isn’t. Maybe because you get literal physical cards for your money?
I recall some sketchy dodge with a bingo night in my elementary school where you paid your entry fee and got your choice of 5 cent knick-knack (erasers, etc…) in return. Because bingo was considered gambling, and by grossly overpaying for this little item, we legally skirted the Texas gambling laws of the early 1980s.
One point I don’t think anyone has brought up yet is that WotC does sell some Magic products where you know exactly what you’re going to get. For instance, the “Duel Decks”: You get a set of two complete decks, already constructed, and playable right out of the box. The two decks follow some sort of theme, like Elves vs. Goblins or whatever, and are designed to be balanced when played against each other. So if you and a friend want to play, you could just split the cost of a Duel Decks pack, and play just those decks, without caring what cards anyone else has. You could use those decks as a basis for a better deck, swapping out cards with cards you got from other sources, but you don’t have to.
Another effect of this is that any card that’s on the rise in price will eventually find its way into one of these non-random products, which effectively puts a cap on how valuable any current card can get. If you really want the ultra-rare supercard, you can find what deck it’s in, and buy that deck (and get 119 other cards with it).
Or, for that matter, the two friends who just want balanced decks to play against each other could get a Duel Decks pack, take out the one ultra-rare card from each and resell it, and get a good fraction of the purchase price back and still have a pair of balanced decks to play against each other.
I was into Magic back when I was in college. A few years ago, it lured me back in. One of my friends made me a fungus deck. It works awfully darn well an cost him $60 tops (likely less). Back in college, I bought a booster pack for around $2.50 . It contained an Unlimited edition Volcanic Island. I sold that card last year for $500. The person I sold to could be considered to be paying to win. But, the card only cost me a quarter. I’m waiting til the pandemic ends to have some friends over to go through my old cards and see if there’s anything else I should sell. I suspect strongly that I don’t have any other cards worth more than $75. Every card I have personally bought individually has been $5 or less.
Lol at golf and snowboarding being “egalitarian”. It costs, what, $100+ a day to snowboard or play golf? Lessons are also not cheap. You can practice playing Magic for free. The best players in the world have video streams where they talk through each game as they play it in real time and tell you why they’re making the plays they’re making to learn from.
In high school when I had little money I used to play Magic with decks of normal playing cards and a conversion table that mapped from playing cards to Magic cards, or with slips of paper that we wrote the names of cards on.
The price floor for being a professional snowboarder or golfer is at least an order of magnitude higher than being a professional Magic player.
He probably would have gotten tired of golf if his friends got expensive private lessons but he could only afford to practice putting in his backyard too. The “pay to win” part of many activities isn’t really the equipment, it’s the facilities and training required to improve. Which isn’t to say that pro golfers or whatever didn’t put in a ton of work, but they also invested a lot of money. Probably a lot more money than pro Magic players had to invest.
And this is generally consistent with the idea that there’s a price floor, and below that floor, there are some pay to win aspects, but they mostly apply to novices.
I have played Magic for many years at a semi-high level (not pro, but I don’t embarrass myself playing against pros). I currently play the Magic Arena computer game form, which is freemium, without paying any money. I could spend money on it, but it would not meaningfully affect my win rate. Having more hours to devote to it would.
I’ve snowboarded for about as long, and I’ve spent way more money on snowboarding.
Man - comparing buying packs of cards to taking lessons (and practicing what was learned) seems a tad strained. And, of course, if one lacks sufficient skill/ability, there is a limit as to how much unlimited lessons/equipment will help (See Charles Barkley! ;)) And comparing total costs between 2 entirely different activities (Magic vs golf or snowboarding) is ridiculous.
But this is obviously not anything I particularly care about.
I’m not, though. Buying packs of cards is being compared to buying time on a golf course. Practicing would be equivalent to playing with the cards. There are expenditures required for almost any activity, but many activities you can at least practice for nothing more than the cost of your time. Magic is such an activity, and golf and snowboarding aren’t.
I laughed at the examples of golf and snowboarding because those activities require special (and not cheap) facilities to even practice. Basketball would be a much better example of something that’s not remotely pay to win. All you need is a ball and a hoop. The ball is really cheap, the hoops are available for free almost everywhere, or nail a peach crate to a tree somewhere and you’re good to go.
I haven’t re-read the entire thread, but to the extent I was discussing golf, I was comparing expenses WITHIN that single activity. Moreover, I was talking about expenses involved in purchasing golf equipment.
Yes, even infrequent recreations golf likely requires greater expenditures that pretty dedicated Magic - but is far less than the minimum investment required to compete in the America’s Cup.
I apologize that I am so bored at work this p.m. that I’m offering any opinion on this.
I realize. I was also responding to another poster who had mentioned golf, and I’m not saying you and that other poster are making the same claim, just that both posts seemed related enough for me to respond together.
My overall claim is:
Many activities have a competitive price floor. Below that floor, having more money to spend on the activity will materially increase your competitive chances. Above that floor, it won’t.
The price floor for Magic is pretty low. It’s not as low as, say, basketball, but it’s way lower than activities like golf. You can be a competitive Magic player at “middle class teenager allowance” levels of expenditures. I know this because I did it for years. The price floor is even lower now that there are ways to play online for free.
The America’s cup is another great example. The boats are identical, so we could argue that it’s totally equal. There’s no pay-to-win in the America’s cup, because spending more money doesn’t make you more likely to win. But that’s obviously absurd, because the price floor is very high, which is why competitive yachting is the sport of billionaires.
If we’re talking about whether a game is pay to win or not, I think a reasonable way to determine that is to look at the price floor. Because every activity is pay to win below the price floor. And every activity is not above it.
I’m not sure what you mean by this, but it kind of feels like a threadshit? Like you think this conversation is beneath you? I think this is an interesting conversation, and it’s about a hobby that I love. If you think you have to apologize for your participation in it, maybe go find another conversation to have? I hope I’m misinterpreting.
My point wrt golf and snowboarding was not that these are egalitarian pastimes - obviously the barrier to entry and the amount of money you can pour into being really really good if you have the means are massive. My point was that the way those games are designed, there is an attempt as much as possible to make the games about skill, not money. The problem is that inherently the equipment quality is really important in those sports and even great golfers are going to have a tough time with cheap equipment.
Magic is a game that is designed to appeal to collectors, sometimes just with prohibitively expensive collectors items that essentially are separate from a pay-to-win dynamic, but often with prohibitively expensive cards that are basically a cost to entry for a particular level of competition in a particular format.
Magic is also a hobby that I love but one of the only things I don’t love about it is the financial aspect of it.
I get what you’re saying, and the difference is that Magic is owned by single corporation while golf and snowboarding aren not, so anything that causes a monetary arms race helps WotC, while there’s no similar single organization that controls and monetizes those other sports.
But: Competitive golf and snowboarding organizations could require standard equipment, but don’t. When you start looking at equipment manufacturers for various sports, a significant amount of what they’re selling is better technology to win more at the game. New golf balls that fly farther. New boards with more spring in them to jump higher or with lower coefficients of friction to slide a little faster. The goal of sporting goods manufacturers is to tilt skill-based sports ever further into pay-to-win competitions.
In other words, every manufacturer of game equipment tries to make the game as P2W as they can. The only difference with M:tG is its monopoly, but that might actually make them less mercenary than most: Since they’re the sole supplier of the equipment, they’d be hit the hardest by a decrease in the game’s popularity, and too much of a P2W environment would have that effect.
Yeah, I think that’s probably one good way of thinking about it. I’m not saying it’s the only reasonable way. And there’s no guarantee that the monopoly owner of Magic won’t do something short-term and dumb to really make it pay-to-win, but they have had lots of chances to do so and haven’t really.
And, WotC doesn’t directly profit from P2W – with the possible exception of a few special collector’s items, WotC doesn’t sell single cards. If you want to buy certain rare cards for your new deck, you’ll be buying them from resellers, on the secondary market. WotC profits from M:tG being popular in the absolute, so that more players buy more decks and booster packs.
Most P2W computer games don’t directly sell individual valuable items: They sell randomized collections of items, which might contain the valuable ones. Which is much the same as WotC’s sealed packs.
But WotC does actually sell some products of known composition, as well, which usually contain one or two specific known-valuable cards (as well as a bunch of other, lower-value cards), and anyone who wants one of those valuable cards can buy such a pack directly from WotC.
But “the valuable ones” in the case of current run cards (the ones WotC is actively selling) are like $20 cards. Looking at the secondary market for the most recent expansion, the most expensive card (not counting foil variants since you don’t need foils to play/win) is $25 and the next is $15. From there it sinks down below $10. From the expansion before that, it caps at $18. These are from a store with additional overhead and you could likely get them cheaper through buying directly from players.
I think this is an important distinction when the thread started with talk of Black Lotuses and Mox gems and the other cards that get headlines when they sell for tens of thousands of dollars. If people view randomized boosters as a “lottery”, it’s one where you can maybe make $15 profit at best if you “win”, not one where you make $15,000.