Why Magic the Gathering is Better Than a Video Game
First off, I am making a bold statement here and by the end of this article it should be clear why that is. As always, would love to hear from each of you in the comments section.
For clarity sake, I am lumping MTGO into Magic the Gathering generally.
In order to understand the framing of this question–that is, the question of Magic’s advantages over video games–it’s important to understand a concept called Creative Destruction. The term was made famous by an early 20th century economist named Joseph Schumpeter. Through creative destruction, the marketplace essentially creates an environment for innovation which ultimately replaces older models and methods of doing things. We see this all the time in modern society. Take the advent of digital cameras replacing rolled-film cameras which had replaced Poloroids–or, more recently, phone-based cameras to some degree competing directly with stand-alone digital cameras. Other easy to understand examples include [pretty much] anything related to the Internet: email nearly replacing “snail mail,” Facebook vs MySpace vs Friendster, CSS vs ‘old school’ HTML, or newspapers migrating in-mass to digital pushes.
The political jargon used by policy makers is simply to site “innovation” as a/the driving force of the market place. For the scope of this discussion, it isn’t necessary to get into an analysis of the implications of creative destruction within society–or where Schumpeter felt capitalism would lead. Rather, we simply need to understand that the process of innovation and creativity as a driving force within the mechanisms that propel us toward improvements can be used as lens for examining the relationship of players to various games.
Let’s first examine Magic the Gathering from the perspective of creative destruction before examining video games. After examining both types of medium and addressing a couple of caveats, we can then move to the implications of creative destruction and the ultimate conclusion that Magic the Gathering is better than a video game. Within the conclusion, I will also address a few concerns or obstacles for the game to be aware of.
Creative Destruction and Magic the Gathering:
As anyone who plays Magic for more than a month knows, a whopping four times a year the development team at Wizards of the Coast releases a fresh set of cards for players. With the release, the card pools for various types of game-play change. This period is lovingly referred to as ‘Format Rotation.’ Cards, and the block-centric mechanics related to those cards, are no longer eligible for constructed tournament-ready decks. Because a metagame is often defined by specific archtypes such as “Mono-Red Burn” or “Affinity” or “Faries,” the loss of cards such as Sulfuric Vortex, Arcbound Ravager or Cryptic Command & Bitterblossom actually represent major shift-points for the game.
In summation, ‘format rotation’ (and ‘block rotation’) is WotC R&D actively entering a process of creative destruction. Archetypes constituting the “metagame” become format-defining. Cards which were format- and archetype-defining, such as those cited above, cause the entire floor of the metagame to fall out from under itself. This process of “falling out” is often seen in technology but it’s very interesting to see it occurring with a “game.” Take chess of example, the game has not changed in thousands of years; it’d be like someone inventing a “Queen on Steroids” or a “New Rook that Jumps Like Checkers”–it’d redefine the method of playing and analyzing chess.
Let’s now shift our focus from Magic the Gathering to video games.
Through physical constraints of software development, video games are hard-coded to function correctly the first and 100th time. In business parlance, finished video games are “weighed down by rules and procedures that discourage innovation.” In fact, that makes complete and absolute sense. You certainly wouldn’t want your video game to randomly decide that after completing level one, you go directly to level 10. That’s considered a bug. The goal with a video game is to create a predictable model for how the user will experience the game.
Games such as World of Warcraft (WoW) and EVE Online are interesting counter-examples but let’s keep in mind that the companies are forced to release “expansion sets” but the fundamental base of the game does not change. In fact, after talking with a very-dedicated WoW player, certain areas of the game cannot be accessed with equipment (such as ‘flying mounts’) released in early editions. The base of the game(s) still fall into the pigeonhole I commented on above: “rules and procedures.” These somewhat adaptive games aside, we can clearly see this trend with games such as Zelda, Mario Brothers, Halo, etc. Though for games like Halo there is a certain segment of play allowing for “player vs player” that does lend itself to the sustainability of the game (and so the business models associated with subscriptions), I still take the stance that these games ultimately lose appeal for the vast majority of players–despite the release of “new levels” or “new weapons.”
Looping back to my first point that the goal of a software-based game is to create a predictable model from which players experience the “digital world,” it’s the predictability aspect of the game which ultimately pushes many players away–often to the next “hot game.” I mean, how many times have you replayed a game after beating it? It becomes a “what’s the point” sort of situation. I would even go so far as to describe Player vs Player-centric games to fall into situations of “hot flare up, quick fade.”
In summary of our analysis of video games, the take-away is that they are fundamentally resistant to change. Entrepreneurs take note! –the ability to innovate within this particular constraint, represents the type of creative destruction cited by business/economic thinkers as leading to wealth creation–or wealth transference depending on your perspective.
With the framework of creative destruction used to contrast video games with Magic the Gathering in place, we can move to a few quick, non-verbose conclusions.
1. Magic the Gathering has staying-power
- Mark Rosewater has commented numerous times, both in his weekly column and on Twitter that he could happily develop and innovate for Magic the Gathering until he dies and never run out of ideas.
- To return to the economic analogy, Magic the Gathering exposes itself to “market pressures.” The game operates within a framework where the current-hot-must-have-cards become tomorrow’s toilet paper (well, maybe not that extreme). WotC R&D becomes a “creator, operator and trader of assets.”
- Magic the Gathering follows a pattern of Innovation and Destruction: incremental (new expansions sets…vis a vis Conflux or Alara Reborn versus Shards of Alara), substantial (oops, that card was more broken than we realized: aka Tarmagoyf), and transformational (base sets: Time Spiral, Lorwyn, Shards, Zendikar…).
2. Magic the Gathering is constantly creating an environment where through the process of creatively destroying itself, the construction environment opens up to a new atmosphere of innovation.
- Just take a recent discussion leading up to Pro Tour Austin as an example. Heck, Ben Lundquist spent about 20 minutes discussing the cycle of a meta-game last week: new sets usher in the aggro deck (Deck-X), leading to a deck designed to beat deck-X (Deck-Y), and then decks designed to play against the “fear of Deck-Y” with decent match ups against Deck-X (Deck-Z). This happens at a minimum of three times a year if you’re only counting the set-releases. Major tournaments such as GPs, $5k’s and PT’s debut new innovations opening up new deck archetypes, effectively setting the tone for the MetaGame. If we look at all the archetypes that popped up within just the last 12 months, the number is significantly higher. Development teams for video games would be extremely hard pressed to keep up with one such ground-breaking environment change.
3. Players come back.
- I can’t even keep count of how many times I’ve heard the story, “Yeah, I started playing back in Beta, stopped in [insert old expansion] and then restarted in [insert new-ish expansion].” It’s practically cliche. (I for the record have never stopped and know that I never will stop playing). Other than spending a few minutes farting around on an old school Nintendo system, I never ever revisit old games. As I said earlier, there’s no point. I’ll wager there’s a lot of research around this point. To wit, here’s one simple example. Interesting quote from that link: “[One Smarty-pants-Panelist] pointed out that under the age of 20, “anyone who is not a gamer is an aboration.” According to his experiences, they actually move as groups from game to game – often sampling 20 to 30 games a year.” [Emphasis mine].
Some points for WotC to watch out for:
- Don’t allow profits to run the development cycle. The perpetuity of the game will ultimately rest more on the design team’s ability to adequately address the need to re-constitute itself than it will on any marketing scheme. This is actually a more difficult challenge than at first glance will lead us to believe. Companies–aka management teams–find creativity cumbersome to manage. Creativity requires freedom, something that fundamentally contradicts a company’s/management’s desire to control operating procedures. Management’s responsibility to fulfill this “need for creativity” then becomes a matter of finding the right people–people who are capable of asking the right questions, not providing the right [sounding] answers–because let’s face it, if you ask the right question, sometimes the answers aren’t so great sounding.
- On that point, let’s not ever ever ever forget that it is the players that drive this community forward. WotC, in this respect, merely needs to continually create the right environment(s) for Magic to be played; little over-sight needed. Pro Tours, MTGO and FNM are great examples of this type of behavior. I’m confident they can keep this up.
Last point, some people bemoan the release of new sets (or the new rules which I still hear people whining about). Mostly these arguments come from a reluctance to “dish out the cash” to “keep up.” True, the system does require continual purchases and is expensive. However, that is exactly what keeps the game interesting. It’s just something you have accept and embrace. I’d rather have an interesting, “living” game than a bunch of cardboard I abandoned to the dust-gods because the game became stale.
[[edit]]
Spoke with a few friends tonight about this article and one friend in particular (Xavier–who’s also published a few posts here) suggested I include this final thought. If you find this idea interesting and worth pondering, an interesting phenomena worth examining further is why games such as Settlers of Catan has had such great success in maintaining interest from its player base since 1995. Again, I can easily posit that much of the continued enthusiasm stems from the expansions sets such as Seafares of Catan. Again, I see this as a result of the makers manipulating the “expected game experience” which results in prolonged interest (and purchases) from a loyal base of players.
Tags: magic the gathering, wizards of the coast
Subscribe to the P9P Newsletter for special offers
and a FREE Ben Lundquist Workshop video clip!
October 5th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
An awesome article that needed to be written. Great Job James, and I can definitely say that Magic is better than any video game I’ve ever played, although Super Smash Bros gives it a run for its money.
October 5th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Great post, James! I agree with your article. It’s truely amazing how enjoyable a game such as Magic can continue to be.
A couple years ago I got started in general boardgaming. This not only included MTG, but also great games such as Catan like you mentioned. Also, games such as Puerto Rico, Agricola, Race for the Galaxy, etc. These quickly replaced my video gaming time every week. For two reasons, first, like you explained, there is the creative destruction element to them. While there are expansions for these, if you have a gaming group that explores a game’s possibilities for even just a few gameplays, you will noticed changes in strategy and gameplay. The fact there are so many routes to win (timing, resources, boardspace, etc.) it keeps the game nearly limitless. MTG takes this to crazy levels by introducing a thousand new options every year. Absolutely nuts!
Secondly, I think a huge part of it is the social aspect of the game. Sure, Majora’s Mask is possibly the best Video Game ever, but in the end, what do you accomplish? It’s a past-time that only you (may) benefit from. Between my time spent playing Morrowind and Magic: The Gathering, I can tell you that I have met a lot of new faces around town playing the latter.
I strongl believe Boardgames and Card Games strongly encourage social interaction while single player video games do the opposite.
So, there’s my tidbit.
Good read!
October 5th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
@nick, yeah the social aspect is certainly important. i didn’t feel i could really address the differences though; meaning, i would be taking a very biased approach if i said “because they’re social and video games aren’t.” i had a guy email a group i’m a member of looking for street fighter four peeps to play with, so there def’ is a social aspect to [some] video games. but that’s PtoP, very different from morrowind. (i Love the elder scrolls series though–but they’re just one person games…and like you said, once you played/beat it what did you really get out of it? 150 of lost hours…when you could have been playing MTG! lol.)
October 5th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Devil’s Advocate here…
So, if I read you correctly, Magic has a faster cycle of creative destruction than video games do, and so it’s easier to make the game fresh and new (currently 4 times a year). Furthermore, Magic thrives on this, and is built around the cycle of creative destruction, whereas for various reasons, video game software conflicts with this modus operandi…
I guess I’m just thinking that the main difference between magic and video games is the speed at which the cycle of creative destruction occurs. Clearly video games evolve and change, and these changes are every bit as paradigm-shifting as they are within Magic. A Wii motion-sensitive controller was as unimaginable to a player of NES donkey kong back in the 80s as a planeswalker was to someone cracking open the new and exciting “Gold” cards like Bartel Runeaxe or whatever back in ’94.
I think the analogy can be changed slightly to make video games and magic cards appear nearly identical. Think of Magic as a platform, like the Sega Dreamcast or something, rather than as the video games. Think of each set, or each card like a new video game instead.
So Magic, Yu-Gi-Oh, Pokemon, etc. are analagous to the N64, the Dreamcast, the xBox, etc. Even better, think of Magic as the Nintendo line of systems. Think of the 6th edition rules changes as the release of the Super Nintendo. Card Frame redesign as the launch of N64, etc. Now the games can be compared relatively easily with sets or individual cycles or cards within sets.
My point here is that no particular sub-set of cards has any lifespan that’s so much greater than that of a video game. Spellbombs in Mirrodin… do they have a longer lifespan than Mario 64?
Changing gears slightly…
I agree that magic seems to have an easier time creating new and destroying old paradigms than do video games, but this, I think, comes largely from the fact that Magic is ALL software, and they don’t have to concern themselves as much with the hardware…
The hardware of Magic is the floor rules. It’s contained in the heads of all the players and judges. Magic, the game, benefits from having no (or very little) overhead gobbled up in the next new console machine. The console can evolve with very little effort, and this is a huge constraint for video games that’s absent in Magic.
The software of Magic are the cards and sets. Compared to the software of video games, the cost to produce this card-software is very low. You don’t need a team of computer scientists, just a bunch of gamers. You don’t need silicon and code, just cardboard and ink. So the low cost of developing Magic’s “software” also speeds up the development cycle, and makes the available options much wider.
I think the concept of creative destruction is present in both genres, and the innovation cycle accounts for the appeal and freshness of both types of games. I think the phenomenon is just more pronounced and perhaps “sped up” a bit within Magic.
“I love playing platform games like Mario” is analagous to saying “I love playing Magic.”
“I love playing video games” is more like saying “I love CCGs.”
I think comparing Magic to any particular video game, or even to video GAMES generally, is comparing an apple and an orange.
“Why Magic the Gathering is like a really fucking good console that evolves over time and keeps getting better” would have been a better title for this article though. It’s a false distinction comparing Magic and Madden 2009 though. You can compare Madden 2009 to something between Tarmogoyf and Future Sight though… somewhere in there the analogy lines up.
I sure agree with the statement, but I’m not sure it follows from the argument.
I love the topic though! And I’m not entirely sure of what I’m arguing here… meaning I’m not sure I’m right or you’re wrong or what… I just like the debate. Interesting stuff.
Nice work James.
October 5th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
@joe
yeah, i GUESS you could consider mtg generally to be a platform but i’m not!
the title is mtg vs a video game because i can compare mtg (one game) to all other games individually: any one game vs. mtg will lose. i won’t be playing that single video game 15 years from now. nobody will be playing madden 2000 in 2009 (unless they’re clueless and/or really weird).
my conclusion with this comparison is that magic is fundamentally better; i then provided my reasoning. if we were to compare all video games over the entire arc of time (including those games yet to be made), then the comparison does break down. i even tried to address this concern by stating that the clever entrepreneur who can figure out a way around the software-hardware constraints inherent to video games will make a serious killing: “move over mr. gates; you’ve been trumped.” you even addressed it in your comment: “[mtg represented as] The console can evolve with very little effort, and this is a huge constraint for video games that’s absent in Magic.” exactly; it’s absent. that’s why it’s better.
from the first printing of any set, there are certain cards that are never played outside of someone getting stuck with it 15th pick! lol.
but here’s the real crux of why i don’t see mtg as a platform (though i love the thought-provoking counter-argument!): i’m not playing with an N64. i’m still playing with the same base hardware in mtg: cardboard.
it is what it is.
October 5th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
also, i believe it’s worth noting that without the cycle of creative destruction, magic would die–and QUICKLY. i don’t know how often i hear, “god, i’m so excited for xyz block to rotate out…” that’s people getting bored with the game.
October 6th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Welcome to my latest episode of “How to write a flippant reply that actually has some depth in under 10 minutes.”
So the first thing I need to lay down is that since 2001 I’ve been working with industry-leading Video Game publishers in designing, developing, testing, and scouting genre-defining, profitable intellectual property. In that time I can honestly say I’ve connected on a personal level with *thousands* of gamers from around the world and I make my business to understand the motivations of gamers. So I feel like I know what I’m talking about when I ramble like this.
While I personally find Magic the Gathering to be a refreshing alternative to Video and other competitive games I think the jury is still out on whether the product is flat out “better” than video games as a whole. In fact, I could say it’s like comparing apples to oranges. But if you want to go that route I’ll just put down a couple of things first and then when I get some time I’ll follow up on your points.
1. Cost. Magic the Gathering has an incredibly prohibitive cost of entry. Yes it’s easy to get into and people do donations etc. but at the end of the day it just costs more to play Magic than it does to play on any particular console plus the 10 most worthy titles on the market. And that’s saying a lot. I can remember back in 1994 when a friend wound up trading his CAR for a black lotus. You just can’t say that about video games.
2. Story. Wizards has learned the hard way – it’s just not possible to tell a quality story through the venue of the cards. Any arguments there have a gander at this excellent article – http://mtgsalvation.com/129-remember-the-weatherlight-part-come-sail-away.html
3. Favorable Cultural impact. Go sample 10 to 20 of your non-magic playing friends and ask them what they think of Magic. Compare that to say, COD4, WOW, or Madden. That’s if they’ve even heard of Magic. While one method of entertainment has achieved cultural acceptance, Magic still has an extremely long way to go. This also applies to female cultural acceptance. There are decent amount of female gamers, but none of them will touch Magic with a ten foot pool. When you can get basically any girl into Magic, (see tetris, soul calibur) then I’ll say it’s great.
4. Complexity. Magic’s barrier of entry is intense – You can pick up the basics of Settlers in an afternoon. Magic takes forever to learn.
- the creative destruction argument is good but there are some holes there. Magic has some very solid areas that don’t change, (lands, zones, the color wheel) and the core fundamentals of magic rules havent’ changed all that much over the years. No matter what set it doing to come out, Black will always kill stuff, Red gonna burn some shit, Blue’s gonna fly, White’s gonna embody order, and Green’s got cheap beef. Yeah details will change and there will be powerful outliers but you can rely on roughly 50-85% of the set to basically to be a slightly tweaked version of something you’ve seen before.
ok 15 minutes, lawl.
October 6th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
love the feedback; lots to chew on here.
i think the problem that i keep coming up against is that everyone takes the stance that i’m arguing: magic is better than all video games collectively. i’ve not tried to make that claim. i’m saying that magic is better than any one game.
i personally don’t like the cost argument simply because plenty of things cost more than other things: volkswagon vs. audi. the ability to charge more is reflected by the value–or so we’re told/taught/socialized. that being said, it’s not the cost that’s driving the value but the value (and scarcity) that drives the cost. the cost is an effect, not a cause. also on cost, keeping up with the game systems and hot new releases is very expensive. heck, i’d have to buy a tv then get the $300 system and then i could start buying games. you only get one remote with gaming systems now too; so i’d have to buy another one of those. oh, and most of the games that seem to “stick around” for longer than a month are all subscription based so i’m stuck paying another monthly bill. i just think that the cost-based arguments aren’t going to lead us anywhere. there’s costs associated with anything and everything. the one thing i can say about costs associated with magic is that at least we can sell our cards for something; video games aren’t worth a piece of chalk after a year or so. the guy who traded his car for the black lotus? probably a good move.
gamers are still considered dorks, doesn’t matter what game they’re playing. it’s just getting cooler to be a dork. culturally, the “jocks” and “female-equivalents” have a strangle hold on what’s cool and what’s not. or maybe this is a personal perception; all my non-gamer friends, of which i have many many more than gamer-friends, consider me a bit of an odd ball for loving mtg so much. i’m a black sheep maybe…either way, it’s just not cool to game. but that’s okay; i don’t game because i think it’s cool. gaming cuz it’s cool makes it uncool. lol. that was me trying to be a hipster.
i also don’t really agree with the argument that because 50-85% of the game is the same, that’s a hole in my argument. if it was 100% different, wouldn’t it be a different game? we’d no longer be able to call it “Magic.” it’d be “Wizards’ Plane-Walker” or “Draw 7″ or whatever. Settlers of Catan is still Settlers even though they added Seafares.
about it for now i guess. thanks, X!
October 8th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
i think the problem that i keep coming up against is that everyone takes the stance that i’m arguing: magic is better than all video games collectively. i’ve not tried to make that claim. i’m saying that magic is better than any one game.
In other Earth-shattering news that will bring about much useful discussion:
The Sun emits more heat into the universe than Earth’s moon. Discuss.
Magic isn’t one game. It is a collection of games stuffed into one massive set of rules. Cards, in fact, don’t last forever. Some don’t get played at all except as a joke. EDH? That’s a game. Standard? That’s a game. If one only enjoys playing Lorwyn block draft, he isn’t going to be doing it for any amazing amount of time.
Elephants are bigger than hamsters, discuss.
Fighter Jets fly faster than passenger planes. Anything incredible we can learn from that discussion?
You CAN compare any two things, I suppose. But it isn’t helpful or encouraging of any real debate. You also specify you only want to compare magic to any one game (while allowing magic to morph into all of its variants) without specifying a game. That could even be a possible discussion that would end up with some manner of benefit.
My 20 favorite video games are better than any 1 video game.
Now there’s a discussion that we can get some useful discussion from. My 20 favorite games are always the best 20 games out at the time. You can only pick one game to put up against them. When one of the 20 becomes less fun for me, I will put a newer/better one in it’s place. Now what can we learn from this? My favorites have amazing staying power, because my favorites will always be my favorites and the games I most enjoy playing. Any single game you pick (even if I really enjoy it) will eventually grow old and be replaced by my new favorite. Thus my favorites have staying power.
It seems to me that at every point you make, you try to highlight a different (and sometimes conflicting) aspect of magic that caters to your conclusion. Cards retain value? Not really. Some has-been cards aren’t worth crap although in their prime they were costly. The VAST majority of cards aren’t worth the paper they are printed on, much less the money you spent on them. This is plainly visible in MTGO, where the one rare from your pack can almost always be seen for sale for 25 cents. Invest four dollars and before you have even opened the pack, you have lost three fifty. You gleefully dismiss all the worthless cards and focus only on the amazing ones (that most people don’t have).
In closing, I would like to say that gold bars have more staying power than Mars bars.
October 8th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
James – So I concede your point on cost, but there’s still some room to wiggle on the popular culture and creative destruction arguments. And I got some thoughts on the complexity argument for you.
To address the random above – We’re gonna go with the “Magic as a console” argument – I like that. We’re not really talking about one game, or ‘all video games weighed against Magic” – it’s kind of like that mid range ideal. This whole discussion is actually a way to segue to the reasons that Magic is a such a successful product, and where it needs to improve, and really that’s what any designer/fan should be tuning in to. Speaking of which for things along that line I would recommend checking out http://www.threedonkeys.com/blog/ – Richard Garfield’s latest blog – to see what sort of things he had in mind and still has in mind when it comes to designing games. The lessons apply across the board for any design.
- Timmy and Billy
So one of the discussion I’ve been having lately with friends is the deck designer vs. deck player argument. Basically I have some great Johnny sort of friends who like to spend time making these excellent decks. Which is fine, and as you know I’ve got about 30 decks to go at a moments notice. But ultimately, I am not a deck designer. I may tweak existing ideas but I personally would rather spend my time learning how to play Magic better vs. learning how to make the best deck. I think this argument carries over into the accessibility argument for Magic and “Video Games’ .
Let’s take two 13 year old boys. – Timmy and Billy. Let’s say Timmy is interested in Magic. He sees his friend playing and after watching a bit he decides he’s going to go to his first FNM. – Well if it’s constructed he’s probably screwed. The days of 5 dollar extended competitive decks are long gone (Flame blast RIP). So if he’s “lucky” enough to get into a draft or sealed event he doesn’t know his ass from a Shivan Dragon and probabably scrubs out pretty early. That’s after paying the standard 14 to 24 US dollars. If he decides hey he’s still interested – maybe he’s got some friends who are helping him out – and he practices for a few weeks may be he’s finally ready to go 1-2 or even 2-1 in a draft, and maybe someone loans him a deck for constructed or whatever and he’s started building his collection, maybe got mom to buy him a few packs or if he’s lucky, a box, and we’re ready to go. Go Timmy!
Billy, in the meantime, has bought a used 45 US dollar copy of Call of Duty 4. In the time that Timmy has spent trying to learn the game, Billy has joined a clan, chats up all the kids at school, spent time on the internet learning the maps etc. While Timmy was learning, Billy *was getting good*.
Yes as the guys who have put 16 years into Magic we can say yeah, it’s worth it in the long run. But we all know immediate gratification is a successful strategy. How does Magic the Gathering deliver immediate gratification?
Games vs. Magic – Shareware.
You talk about creative destruction and how it makes Magic better, as if Magic has a patent on rebuilding itself. If one look at any Game genres as a whole, it’s nothing but creative destruction. Games constantly take themselves apart and rebuild and bring back completely new but familiar experiences. And they steal from each other pretty freely. See the Mario/Zelda franchise. Hell, look at Desktop Defense. The game is *FREE* and there are a million different variations on it on Kongregate, or you can download Pixeljunk Monsters for whole different experience on it.
And what’s even crazier is that Video Games offer the ability for you re-create it yourself – look at Source, Halo 3, Team fortress, There is no Counter Strike or Desktop Tower (itself a user-designed Star Craft level) analog in Magic – no one has taken the “source code” of magic and successfully translated into a competing product – There is no user owned version of it – and if they could, Wizards would no doubt sue them. They seem to have forgotten the other label that appears on the back of every Magic card.
Please, tell me where the other Deckmaster products are.
Where is the leveraging of the IP? Does every freaking Magic card have to have the Dragon, Zombie, Goblin, and scantily clad elf/fairie/nymph on it? You want to know why more people aren’t into Magic, maybe it’s seeing yet another Vampire or Legolas clone on the Magic adverts. Where is Mafia, the Deckmaster product? Why are we still settling for using these early 1900′s Tolkien rip off IP? Where are the educational historical Magic Products? The game I can play in my civics class and get away with it because it’s learning?
On popular culture –
It’s not about being a dork, James, it’s about how the culture at large views the hobby. It actually has nothing to do with the playerbase at all, it has to do with how Wizards successfuly leverages the product. Look at Zynga, for example. How many freaking Mafia, Farmville, and Texas Hold’em offers do you a get a day? **Millions** of people are playing those games, right now. Total population on MTGO? About 30K. You can claim superior product but the end result is that Wizards is not making it easy. Zynga wants to get someone, they make an app and you press accept. Why in God’s name can I play D&D mini-adventures but there is no Magic app on Facebook?