 |
||
|
|
||
|
After a few days, the mail began to get overwhelming. Although the response rate was not as heavy as some times in the past, many of the e-mails were twice the normal length. I decided that the best way to appreciate everyone who wrote was to try an experiment. By opening up my mailbox, I get to respond to many things at once, publically. It also gives Wizards of the Coast and everyone else a chance to see what has been said on the subject. Please keep in mind that this is only a reprease keep in mind that this is only a representative sample. I got over 100 mails and it didn't make sense to include them all here. For starters, I did not include about three e-mails I received which were mostly inflammatory. Since the points these authors raised were brought up in less insulting ways by other writers, I included the other writers instead. Also, I have not included any reply I received which was explicitly private. All e-mail addresses have been partially obliterated to give everyone privacy and protect their addresses from the spambots that roam the web.
All annotations that I have made to the responses are in gray, just like this.
Thank you all so much for writing, and I'm sorry I did not have the discipline to fire off
a personal reply to everyone. |
||
|
Replies: | ||
| Top Peter Adkison | ||
|
From: Peter Adkison <m---a@wizards.com>
Catherine, thanks for giving us the opportunity to respond.
Rei Nakazawa already pointed out your article to me and I'm enclosing
herein the response I sent to him. He specifically asked "Also, do you have
any reply to the "problems" with media coverage? How
much space and access will you allow other web sites? Is the author
correct in being concerned that other sites will be hounded and cut off
entirely from direct feeds, as it were?" So my response is focused on those
questions specifically. Anyway, here it is, in case he hasn't already
forwarded it to you.
----------
Sure we're going to be competitive about trying to protect as much as
possible the revenue streams associated with Magic organized play. The
program has a net loss every year in excess of $5M, so those revenue
streams are important for keeping the cost as close to that as possible. (I
think true costs are close to $7M, offset by about $2M in revenues, but
those numbers could be out of date a bit.)
The author has a good point in that there aren't any other proprietary
games out there that have an organized play program supporting them at this
level. That's called innovation. We did something no one else had done.
The closest things to it are chess and bridge, but since no large company
owns those games, those organizations have to be self-funding and the
result is they can't do nearly as much for their players.
Sports like the NBA and such of course are in a different category, but the
difference is that they're large enough to make money. We're painfully
aware of the conflict of interest issues (we don't deny it). If the DCI
were ever able to get to the point of being self-sustaining, it has been
our plan all along that we would seriously consider spinning it off to be a
seperate not-for-profit organization. I think we'd be stupid to not try and
retain SOME influence over that organization, but it would certainly put us
in a much more comfortable position PR-wise if the DCI were separate. But
to spin it off now would be a disaster.
Summary: the author makes some good points. I may disagree, or at least
have a different slant, on some of the details, but we don't deny that one
of the great challenges we face in managing Magic and the DCI is the
conflict of interest issues. Personally I think we do a pretty good job of
walking that fine line, but, of course, reasonable minds may differ.
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to respond.
-----------
Stay on target,
In response to this mail, I sent Mr. Adkison a short message, to which he replied:
From: Peter Adkison <m---a@wizards.com>
At 07:21 PM 6/14/99 -0400, you wrote:
>I think it would be a good thing if somebody from Wizards would address
You can certainly consider my previous email, and this one, to be "public."
The safeguards we have in place are sufficient for my peace of mind; your
readers will have to judge for themselves as to whether they are sufficient
for them.
The safeguards are basically this. We hire good people who are intelligent
and who really care about the game. They are encouraged to be honest and
ethical io be honest and
ethical in all their dealings, and those who aren't are asked to leave.
They take pride in their work, and they work extremely hard and, frankly,
put up with a lot of crap. While we are all humans, and occassionally we
make a mistake, or are susceptible to pride or any of the other human
frailties, I believe the DCI staff has fairness to the players as their top
priority.
Hiring the right people and creating the right corporate culture will do
far more than rules, regulations, audits, fairness committees, or anything
else will in building a staff that does what's right.
>I would like to print your letter as a response to my article, because I
Feel free to post any of this thread you'd like.
Stay on target, |
||
| Top Skaff Elias | ||
|
In addition, Skaff Elias responded to Mr. Adkison's ideas:
From: Skaff Elias <g-----s@wizards.com> Actually a further to point to Peter's post is that Baseball enjoys special anti-trust protection. Non-competitive practices were deemed by the US government to be a requirement for the proper development of a national sport. You may remember such discussions during the baseball strike several years ago.
I don't know of the status of other sports, but I do know that judges
have been pretty lenient on the side of the national organizations.
(Remember the USFL settlement, or the occasional lawsuit regarding
free-agency and drafts, etc.).
| ||
| Top Dave | ||
|
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 99 09:22AM EDT Your article was right on target! It was like a bre right on target! It was like a breath of fresh air to have someone say what I've been screaming about all along...YOU CAN'T BE THE SANCTIONING BODY FOR YOUR OWN GAME!! I like to think of myself as a game purist ( I play simply because I like the game). However, because of the way it's played at the higher levels I long ago gave up an hope of playing it at anything but the local scene. It's sad that even in Magic it is not often just what you know but who you know.. Well take care and keep up the good work....
| ||
| Top Michael A. Turner | ||
|
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 99 07:45AM EDT Games workshop does almost the exact same thing as you described but to an even more restrictive extent. Anywhere but the US you are not allowed to buy their miniatures anywhere but in their stores. In the US they allow stores to sell their miniatures, but once your sales hit a point they will open a store across from you in the mall that you are at you in the mall that you are at to steal your business , and heaven help you if you discount their miniatures. WOTC can get worse, all they need to do is take a couple of pages out of games workshops book. and lets not even mention TSR here...... Michael A. Turner
This makes me wonder if this is the direction WotC is heading, regarding
the push to knock out internet-only sales. ../index.html/b992/bif.990315jpa.txt | ||
| Top Dan | ||
|
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 99 23:58PM EDT Excellent article Cathy. You raised many valid points. The Wotc 'intellectual property' whine is becoming a Frankenstein. I recall about the time of the MTG Alliances release, all the artists (Anson Maddocks and Amy Weber quit about this time) were forced to renogotiate their copyrights and fees at drastically reduced rates, apparently their 'artistic property' isn't as sacred atic property' isn't as sacred as Wotc's. As to the tournaments, you only have to look at the dismemberment of the Legends of the Five Rings CCG that Wotc bought out. They do not want ANY competition. Tournaments that were drawing hundreds when independently run, were attracting 8-20 people when DCI took over. They've moved quickly to annex the L5R site, the current webmaster is getting the boot. More details online at Shadowlands Refuge of the Lion Clan from past tournament winner C. Bergstrom. I have not participated in a tournament since Mirage, so I can not make fair commentary on the current state of the DCI. I do know from a friend at Mishra's Factory that he has spoken to Mike Long about seeing him palming cards (ProsBloom deck) and Mike admitted to him doing it. I know that he has pulled this stunt at other tournaments as well. Why bring it up? Because the DCI is impotent at enforcing honest and ethical play. Player favoritism and elitism will continue as long as a 'clean' marketing image must be maintained. Heaven forbid if the tournaments were tarnished by throwing out the 'top players' , I mean cheaters. As to competitors on the net, if they can enforce internet censure, Wotc will.
| ||
| Top Jackwraith | ||
|
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 99 23:11PM EDT Cathy, You make some valid points, certainly. However, the question of 'antitrust' is a nebulous one. I'm sure you know as well as I that the concept of 'antitrust' was to prevent 'trusts', i.e. consortiums of companies or holding comapanies that would prevent others from entering the market on a product and competing effectively. While WOTC has certainly made steps in that direction, their efforts at controlling coverage of their events and the ratings system and validity of said events doesn't quite land them in the same sphere that the antitrust laws would cover. That being said: More's the pity. It would be gratifying to see some kind of impartial body or agency policing WOTC on 'moral' grounds but that never seems to happen, despite the earnest polishing of lamps and twisting of fingers... I found this part of your essay rather amusing: " What other games have created their own tournaments and their own official magazines, while aggressively threatening to litigatively threatening to litigate against everyone else? " That would be TSR which is, of course, now owned by... WOTC. The irony threatens to choke the observers. It's in these situations that I like to quote the venerable George Orwell: He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past. Putting aside my ramblings, I enjoyed the article. It's refreshing to know that there are still people out there other than Noam Chomsky who mirror my opinion of monolithic corporations and their inevitable actions against those who buy their products. Ta.
Jack | ||
| Top Frank Bustamante | ||
|
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 99 17:42PM EDT I just wanted to let you know that I read your article and wanted to congratulate you for striking very real and problematic points with the CCG industry and WotC. I don't think enough people realize how much of a problem it is for others toof a problem it is for others to compete in the industry with things such as the WotC CCG patent, the DCI and their total stranglehold on everything that is CCG's. thanks again, Frank Bustamante
The details of WotC's patent on practically everything involving
a CCG can be found at http://patent.womplex.ibm.com/details?patent_number=5662332.
| ||
| Top Larry A. Skipper | ||
|
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 99 17:04PM EDT Hello. Your article confirms that you generally share my feelings toward WotC, in that WotC is, and has been, behaving in a wholly anti-competitive manner. I have been involved in the game of Magic since late Revised, and saw the seeds of money-grubbing monopoly way back then -- actually, even before I was "sucked into" the game (You mean you have to buy more and more cards to impto buy more and more cards to improve your deck?!). The creation of OOPs, after Chronicles devastated the value of many early cards, was the first direct manipulation of secondary card prices of which I was aware. The history of monopoly is easy to see and map out for an old-timer, especially for one such as myself, who has been involved in competitive chess and has a historical perspective on the problem of business monopolies (I'm so old, I was playing AD&D before the current Magic generation was born ... but, well, I guess that's not so old after all). You exposed the various "conflict of interest" problems very well; but conspicuously absent was any hint of a solution. The US Justice Department might be the place to start, or perhaps lawsuit of some kind, or maybe even a 60-Minutes expose -- but the basic problem is lack of money and/or incentive on the part of those outside of the WotC monopoly. Card shops that sell Magic products tend to be small single-store operations, and the consumer base is composed largely of teenage males who siphon money off parents to pay for cards. Neither group has much to gain from antitrust actions against WotC. Another factor is that a relatively small number of people who have stayed in touch with Magic long enough to see that a problem exists. The turnover rate of Magic players is tremendous; whether by accident or by design, this works in favor of WotC. High-profr of WotC. High-profile Magic players and personalities would lend credibility to action against the system -- but those are the people who have the most to lose by rocking the boat. Another basic problem is that the persons or companies who would bring legal action against WotC would likely be ostracized by WotC and its legal machine (for obvious reasons), and possibly the Magic community (for throwing the Magic world into turmoil). May I use as an analogy Ken Starr and the White House spin machine? So, the basic question might be, "Is the potential solution (whatever that might be) worth the cost?" So far, the answer to that question is apparently, "No". My contention, having been observing from the fringe of mainstream Magic for a time, is that WotC must cease to exist in order for Magic to attain the status and stability of games such as chess or bridge. As long as the direction of the game is controlled by economics (or, more bluntly, greed), it is nothing more than an entertaining commercial product in the guise of an "intellectual" game. To use another analogy, R&D at WotC must be like being city planners, who put a park in the plan for the city, only to have the contractors and real estate brokers on the city council replace it with an apartment block instead -- because it puts money into the right pockets. As for the impact of the WotC the impact of the WotC monopoly on "The Game" of Magic -- well, let's compare chess and Magic. I could bump into you at the airport, and we could enjoy a game of chess during the layover between flights. But imagine two persons bumping into each other in an airport and playing a casual game of Magic. Are you playing tourney-legal cards? Are we playing Type 1? Extended? Type 2? Which rules, Sixth? Paris mulligan? Oh, by the way, I have a copy of the latest card errata and rulings from D'angelo in my suitcase. Have you seen the latest bannings? Case in point -- I left the tournament scene after Stronghold, around April, '98. With the release of Sixth, I no longer know the "rules" of Magic (now there's a moving target). When the next stand-alone block rolls in this fall, I'll have virtually no Type 2 legal cards. And, surprisingly, I'm currently still ranked in the Type 2 top 20 for my state-- even though I haven't played a tournament game in over a year! WotC didn't notice that I wasn't active -- they want my money, they don't care what my name is -- and if I drop out, a 12-year-old with rich parents will fill my purchasing slot. What a way to build a legacy for a game! The ruinous impact of WotC's mismanagement of "The Game" of Magic (through flawed R&D, machine-gun card releases, and the DCI) is clearly seen. We all know many people that "used to" play Magic. So, where does that leave there does that leave the players? Ah, yes, the players. The customer. Currently, if what I read on the Dojo, and see on the local Magic scene, the typical player will pass quietly through the Magic scene quickly (a year, maybe?), having only cards and decks that are no longer Type 2 legal to show the time and effort spent on the game. Yes, the players are passively riding along on the cart built by WotC, which is being driven by the DCI, while the Duelist is busily telling you that you're enjoying every minute of it -- very much. I didn't have the influence or resources to change the direction of the cart, so I got off the cart after Stronghold. And I have found that as a static game, played with a fixed set of cards, Magic is still interesting -- perhaps more than ever. Now I have the time and resources to pursue the OOPs that I never could when I was chasing whatever was currently called "Type 2". Take care, and good luck with this crusade, Larry Skipper
"Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall." | ||
| Top John Stoneham | ||
|
|
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 99 12:01PM EDT I just read your DoJo article on WotC's anticompetitive practices. I'm an attorney, so it particularly caught my attention, and I would like to mention some things which you might want to pass on to the DoJo and other MtG sites. I am new to Magic and haven't played in any tournaments, so my comments are directly related to the legal aspects of the things you discussed in your article, and are not based on my own experience with Wizards of the Coast. First I would like to discuss WotC prohibiting independent tournaments. The bottom line is: they can't, at least in court. Conducting an independent tournament in no way violates any intellectual or copyright laws, State or Federal. There may be isolated incidents, such as photocopying WotC's copyrighted rules, but this can be avoided, and the copyright is not infringed if only an original purchased copy of the rules is used. So, if WotC is threatening legal action against anyone conducting an independent tournament, they are ONLY threatening, and they cannot legally follow through on that threat. There may be other ways that WotC can effectively block these tournaments, such as cutting off the supply of products to retail owners that to retail owners that conduct them, or preventing that owner from conducting sanctioned tournaments. These actions might very well warrant an anti-trust investigation. My second comment concerns the posting of tournament results by the DoJo or other websites. The names of the contestants, the results of matches and the tournament in general, the bracketing, the ratings and changes in ratings of the players, and any other form of data is not copyrightable: it is just data and can be posted by anyone, anywhere. The exact FORMAT of the data (for example, a specific table on WotC's site) is copyrightable, but the data itself is not. So as long as the DoJo is not just going to cut-and-paste a table from WotC's site, they can legally post tournament results. This is why the NFL cannot charge a newspaper for printing the results of a football game, but they CAN charge for the reproduction of any materials they have produced. If you have any questions, please feel free to email me.
John Stoneham |
|
| Top Charles Mousseau | ||
|
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 99 11:48AM EDT Mz. Nicoloff: What can I say, except that I'm duly impressed! When I saw the link to your article, I clicked on it expecting it to see an opinionated rhapsody, sprinkled with bits of misinformation (such as referring to card counting at blackjack as "cheating"). Much to my (pleasant) surprise, I found a highly cohesive argument claiming that the DCI was guilty of much anti-trust, and this was backed up by some very strong use of analogy. Well done! I don't know if you read my "exposee" on the pathetic rules enforcement at the Destiny pre-release, but rest assured that I have seen with my own eyes what you are talking about as far as cheating goes. The DCI is trying to brush cheating under the rug, and it is making me ill. No matter how much it hurts, they need to purge cheating, trash-talking, sloppy play and weak rules enforcement if they ever want to get anywhere. Maybe they will be like the Roman Empire - annex province after province until they are so fat and decadent they collapse under their own weight. Don't bet against it. Anyways, do keep up the good work.
Charles "Pestign="justify">
Charles "Pestilence" Mousseau PS Since you are of my generation, I imagine you remember the story of Atari Games and the 80's. Once they were on top, they tried to sue everyone into oblivion.. A representative from Coleco, who had just been sued, said (roughly) "I guess we're finally for real - everyone knows you aren't anyone in this industry until you've been sued by Atari". Funny, Atari has fallen from grace too...
Lest anyone else misunderstand me, I apologize for calling the
practice of counting cards "cheating". It is only "cheating" from the perspective of the
house, who will toss out anyone they suspect of counting.
| ||
| Top Steve Easton | ||
|
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 99 11:39AM EDT Hi Cathy, Nice article, but if what you're saying is true I doubt the Dojo would have run an article on independent Magic related sites, and I endent Magic related sites, and I also doubt they would have praised the Dojo so prominently on a number of occasions. There are "bean counters" in WoTC running things, but I think there are still enough games enthusiasts present to stop things getting completely out of hand. As for Collectible Card Gaming as a hobby, yes, WoTC have a complete monopoly. This is to do with WoTC patenting CCG concepts such as tapping. The only answer is to move back to "traditional" games, such as board games and RPGs. This is what I'll be doing if the next set isn't substantially better than Saga.
Steve "GastroGnome" Easton | ||
| Top Matti Nuortio | ||
|
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 99 08:34AM EDT Be greeted many a time! Only recently my eyes were caught by a written document of some personal style, and the idea of which according to my understanding was to express and make known the author's very opinions - a column or so, if very opinions - a column or so, if you wish. It was called Anticompetitive Antics. I presume you do know the author *s*. The only thing I wish to outspeak, express and ultimately forth-bring unto thy knowledge is: ya couldn't of put 't better. There is some analogical and irrelevant niggle-giggle about which I to some extent disagree with you, but you nevertheless 'hit the point' exactly and with awesome presicion. I am delighted to see there are other folks concerned about the current state of affairs (there have been quite a many writings upon related issues at the Dojo). The Australia incident was a thing I'd never heard of before. Now I hope WotC never finds out about my Poro (poro is Finnish, engl. transl. 'reindeer') Tour MTG league and my extremely simple rating system for it. I hope they won't find about my planned sealed-deck event for my self-designed set. I hope they won't find about me spreading my anti-WotC/DCI opinions among my friends etc. On the other hand: what the hell? *grin*
Keep on going.
Just in case they do find out, be prepared to
cease and desist.
| ||
| Top Allen Sorensen | ||
|
From: "sorensen" (xxxxxxxx@pop.erols.com) I thought your article about the DCI was very informed, concise, and intelligent. But most of all, it was objective. You made the following point, "You wait for somebody to innovate, then you descend upon them and either purchase them or Xerox them." Do you consider the purchasing of L5R Publishing group an example? Another thing, did you read the article on the Dojo from the Level IV Judge? It was a few weeks ago, and alas, I can't find it on the Dojo now. The Judge writing it voices her opinions about cheating on the Pro Tour, and the mistreatment of Foreign Pro Tour players. She mentions that Wizards oayers. She mentions that Wizards of the Coast was very displeased with her and basically told her to keep her mouth shut. I'm sorry I don't have the original article, but I thought this information would be relevant. There will come a day of reckoning, you've caught the attention of thousands who'll help, but even more important, you've caught the attention of Wizards PR "Spin Doctors"--now they're scared. Allen Sorensen, (-8
The article you're thinking of was written by Andrea
Kunstt, a Level III judge in Southern California. Her article can
be found at
../index.html/column/col.990526aku.shtml.
| ||
| Cathy Nicoloff (c_nicoloff@usa.net) | ||