Last week I decided to climb back on the article writing wagon by going off on a few of the issues that were bothering me. I introduced the master plan for opening up extended. And I finally got my word in on Magic Online, how it is a quality program, and something complained about way too much....
I submitted the thing late on Friday, and it missed the Monday update (an article from me means several hours of editing for the poor Ferrett) (Untrue; The Ferrett was on vacation - said Ferrett), and appears on Tuesday.
Meanwhile, on Monday afternoon, all the rules change.
For those of you living in a black hole, Wizards has announced it's pricing strategy for the Magic Online game, meaning yesterday's rant on the subject was dated before it saw print. I feel like I just told Teddy KGB that Worm was good for the money...
I just vouched for Donnie Brasco...
I recommended an investment in New Coke...
It's amazing what a difference a pricing strategy can make. I argued that players like me would have little interest in Magic Online anyway, and such is (somewhat) true. The fact is that if I had upgraded my home PC, I could have been lured in at the right price. It seems easier to get a stable draft in Magic Online than it is for me on IRC, and at 75 cents a draft I may have been willing to pay for that difference. I also implied in my article that most enthusiastic online players would greatly prefer Magic Online and it would be worth the investment.
This could have easily been true.
But am I going to pay $10 US for an online draft? Never.
Would a league that it costs you hundreds of dollars to compete in be fun? I don't think so.
By pricing their packs on the level with suggested retail of their real life product (and not, to our knowledge, even offering bulk prices), they have managed to make an online game that is actually more expensive than their real life game. In a pathetic attempt to justify this pricing, they have announced an online-card-to-real-card redemption strategy. This is to get you thinking that you get your investment back in real cards anyway. But by associating this with collecting sets, it ensures that you get very crappy real cards - and only one or two that you want per set. Even if this was an at all reasonable way to go about collecting real cards, Magic Online would be roping you in for a guaranteed level of investment in Magic.
Now let's count the ways that I find this annoying:
- Players who use online tools for practice won't give this a whiff.
- Players who would be tempted to use it will have difficulty affording it.
- This was meant to be a way to introduce the video gaming public to magic as well, bringing new players into the game. What video gamer will try out a new game at these prices?
- Any players who do start out collecting this way will probably be writing those I quit open letters we all love so much within a year.
- Many of you will never know just how well done this program was.... And that is a shame.
I suppose this gets to me so much because the game had so much potential. Listen to any of the testers.... They all love the product. It solves so many online play issues, and any problems with over-regulation of play (such as needing five hours of free time to commit to a draft if you care about ratings) are minor. It could have been a great resource for online play, and now it's just another interactive encyclopedia.
From a corporate perspective, I almost understand the reasoning here. By offering an obfuscated redemption tie in to real cards, you can try to assert that buying online packs is equivalent to buying real cards, meanwhile players who wish to play online all of a sudden are giving you a much more stable (and more trackable) investment in the game. In addition, there was probably fear that if the online game was too cheap, it would hurt sales of the actual product.
So let us, the Magic community, act like smart consumers and reply to Wizards in the language of money.
It has been suggested on MTGNEWS that online testers 'strike' for a day. I find this totally insufficient.
I propose that players terminate their beta test now. For those of you I told yesterday to try the program before you knocked it... Don't. For those already beta testing, I think a politely worded email to those administering the test to say you will not test anymore as you have no interest in the product as priced would be appropriate. It may be tempting to get in free play while you can, but don't be sucked in. A dead server is one of the best ways to make the point to Wizards. Make them worry that they won't recover a cent of their development costs.
Short of hurting local stores much more than Wizards, this is about all we can do for a message (I was thinking of trying to set up a prerelease boycott, but Wizards have already sold stores that product). However, an online petition is also in order.
I have to believe it is not too late for Magic Online. If you like the program, I must ask that you cease to use it so that the point is clear and immediate.... It may not be too late to change the pricing policy. But the policy will only get changed if Wizards thinks they can't recover their costs at the current pricing level. You have to make them afraid of losing their investment. If you want to charge per pack for online packs, the cost should be well under a dollar per pack. At 25 cents per pack, you would not have to have any card redemption plan to sell the program.
Or, as the Ferrett pointed out, they could probably make substantial revenues at a fixed subscription fee of ten dollars a month. They might be able to convince me to pay ten dollars a month for unlimited quality drafting, and I am pretty darn sure that would keep them comfortably above costs... But ten dollars a draft will never happen.
The other thing Wizards apparently needs to be convinced of is that Magic Online at a reasonable price will not hurt sales of their real life product. I have no idea how to show them that, or whether it is true. But whether online or in real life, the money still all goes to Wizards, and online has significantly lower production costs anyway (or it should). If Wizards would have us believe that development and server costs cost as much per unit of product as manufacturing, packaging and distribution of cards, then my question is: Who is the utter moron who approved the idea of developing this application? If it is that expensive to maintain, then Wizards should never have bothered.
Anyway, I have said my piece on this subject and will let it alone now. For those of you not in the Beta test (i.e., with no Magic Online contact email), I would recommend sending your complaints to custserv@wizards.com.
Later,
Mark Acheson
Nevyn on www.bdominia.com and IRC
*** P.S.
If anyone cares, here is the letter that I have personally sent to Wizards customer service about this issue:
To Whom It May Concern,
This letter is my personal response to the announcement of your pricing strategy for Magic Online. I find this approach completely untenable and unreasonable, and am so disappointed that you would charge these rates that I will not only avoid Magic Online for the foreseeable future, but that I will curb my spending on your real life games as well. I would like to continue to be a Magic player, but it is your responsibility to keep me interested in your products if you would like to sell them.
I will likely still be participating in DCI events, and may make some SECONDARY market card purchases; however, I will not be buying any more WOTC products directly or from stores unless I am satisfied that Wizards feels any responsibility at all towards its online community. I doubt that I will be the only business you lose due to your strategy with this online game.
Hopefully, you will come to your sense and rework your pricing of the online game to a moderate level, but if you do not, I sincerely hope you don't sell a single e-pack. Charging equivalent prices for a much cheaper and less valuable product is completely unreasonable.
Yours,
Mark Acheson
| 
