[M13] Magic 2013 Announcement

[Bogardan Mage]

Originally Posted by signofzeta

So selling a product named blah blah 2013 in April 2012 a good business idea? Hmm, 9 months in 2012 and 3 months in 2013. So a blah blah 2013 product will be in 2013 for 3 months out of 12. It makes my claim of the midyear naming convention makes more sense, and that is what WOTC is doing too.

Do you have any intention at all of addressing the actual stated reason for this convention (I already gave you a link), which is not in any way invalidated by your hypothetical? Also, do you have any intention of explaining why this isn't a good business idea? Oh no, selling a product called 2013 in 2012! Clearly nobody will buy it? No, I don't see how that follows, especially since they're clearly willing to buy it after the 1st of July. Again you prove yourself incapable of concieving any possibility beyond your own preconcieved notion.

Originally Posted by signofzeta

If WOTC released core sets in April, much like they have done with core sets older than 8th edition, they would have called the current one Magic 2011 rather than Magic 2012. As I said, they are maximizing the amount of time that M13 will be "in the season" when it is actually 2013.

It doesn't matter! That is an irrelevant consideration! What is relevant is that during the time it is sold in 2013 it will come off as an outdated product. I don't see why you refuse to accept this.

Originally Posted by signofzeta

You know what? Since you don't know what MLB and NBA are, I will give you 2 images.

Right, and I'm guessing the things you were talking about were video games relating to these sports? Also not made by WotC and therefore having no relevance to WotC policies?

[DonRon]

Dude, to get back to your original "ZOMG" point of 20 years. If Alpha was released in August 1993, then it began its first year at that point. It concluded its first year and began its second year August 1994. It's just math. They're celebrating the 20th anniversary when they should.

Case in point Mr NFL. If Superbowl I was in 1967. When is Superbowl XX? If you said 1987, please try again with your fingers and toes. If you said 1986, you might understand math!

Back on topic: No big surprise but at least the core sets have been interesting since M10. Beats the yawnfest that used to accompany core sets from 1995-2008.

[Bogardan Mage]

Originally Posted by DonRon

Dude, to get back to your original "ZOMG" point of 20 years. If Alpha was released in August 1993, then it began its first year at that point. It concluded its first year and began its second year August 1994. It's just math. They're celebrating the 20th anniversary when they should.

Case in point Mr NFL. If Superbowl I was in 1967. When is Superbowl XX? If you said 1987, please try again with your fingers and toes. If you said 1986, you might understand math!

Back on topic: No big surprise but at least the core sets have been interesting since M10. Beats the yawnfest that used to accompany core sets from 1995-2008.

20th year != 20th anniversary. The first anniversary was in August 1994, as you rightly said. So what year is the 20th anniversary?

[signofzeta]

Originally Posted by Dakarai

lol!


And I'm pumped for a new set

I wouldn't say the same for this year's NBA season though haha.

Back to what I was saying. A lot of products have the product name followed by the year on it, and Magic core sets aren't the only products that use this naming convention, which somebody here doesn't even get.

EA sports and 2k sports attach years to their sports video games to denote the year the season of that particular sport is played in. Yugioh did the same thing with their starter decks, such as starter deck 2011, to show that the product is pretty much the starter deck is the latest one.

So this is how it goes.

Yugioh Gold series 2011 released in January 2011
Yugioh Starter Deck 2011 released in March 2011
MLB 2k11 released March 2011
MLB 11: The Show released March 2011

Past midyear mark

NCAA football 12 released July 2011
Magic 2012 core set released July 2011
Madden 12 released August 2011
NHL 12 released September 2011
FIFA 12 released September-October 2011
NBA 2k12 released October 2011

So as I said, releasing an annual product every february and naming it one year ahead is the stupidest idea, just because "it makes it more new". No it doesn't. It makes the consumer think that the product will be active for most of the year that the product says it is. If the next product were to replace it, let's say Magic 2015 replaced Magic 2014 in February 2014, then the consumers would feel ripped off that they bought an old product disguised as a new product.

If you don't get it, imagine this sceanario. Core sets are released February. It is now April of that same year. You buy Magic 2014 thinking that it is the newest product, but NOPE, M14 is no longer standard legal, and you should be buying M15, despite it being the year 2014. This scenario wouldn't ring true if the product were to be released Q3 and Q4 of that year, since a 2015 product in 2014 would be only be there for less than half a year, and the fact that the product is active for most of the year that the product says it is the year of.

Also someone's article only mentions the naming convention when the product is being released in July, and what they say ONLY MAKES SENSE FOR A PRODUCT RELEASED IN JULY. Release it in February, and that argument of "hey, they product would feel so new", wouldn't make sense anymore. Hence why products with a year attached to the name released in January, February, and March use the same year that the product is released in. I haven't seen any annual product released in Q2 of the calendar year, so I can't say anything about that.

The only reason why the article says what it says is because M10 will be in store shelves for more than half of 2010, and less than half of 2009, so the product wouldn't feel old when it was called M09 for over half of 2010. It doesn't explicitly say that, but when you think about it, that is what it is actually trying to say. Do the same crap except the product is released June vs July, then you get a product that is active for most of 2009 and less of 2010. What this means is that, if the product was called M10 for the majority of 2009, and by the time 2010 rolls around, people have the impression that M10 is still active for the majority of 2010, but they don't realize that M11 will replace it during less than half of the time that it is 2010. It gives the impression that they got ripped off by buying a product with 2010 in its name. As I said the article only holds water for a product released in JULY, and not any other month. I don't know what they would have said if core sets were released in Q1 or Q2 of the year.

[Bogardan Mage]

Originally Posted by signofzeta

I wouldn't say the same for this year's NBA season though haha.

Back to what I was saying. A lot of products have the product name followed by the year on it, and Magic core sets aren't the only products that use this naming convention, which somebody here doesn't even get.

EA sports and 2k sports attach years to their sports video games to denote the year the season of that particular sport is played in. Yugioh did the same thing with their starter decks, such as starter deck 2011, to show that the product is pretty much the starter deck is the latest one.

So this is how it goes.

Yugioh Gold series 2011 released in January 2011
Yugioh Starter Deck 2011 released in March 2011
MLB 2k11 released March 2011
MLB 11: The Show released March 2011

Past midyear mark

NCAA football 12 released July 2011
Magic 2012 core set released July 2011
Madden 12 released August 2011
NHL 12 released September 2011
FIFA 12 released September-October 2011
NBA 2k12 released October 2011

That's not the reason MaRo gives. What's wrong with you?

I understand perfectly. The only reason I thought I didn't understand was because your thought processes make no sense. But I get it! You think that because several products made by several different countries attach years to their names, they all must opperate on the same naming convention. I don't know why you think this, and I'd probably prefer not to know.

[signofzeta]

Originally Posted by Bogardan Mage

That's not the reason MaRo gives. What's wrong with you?

I understand perfectly. The only reason I thought I didn't understand was because your thought processes make no sense. But I get it! You think that because several products made by several different countries attach years to their names, they all must opperate on the same naming convention. I don't know why you think this, and I'd probably prefer not to know.

Why 2010 when we're in the middle of 2009? Because the set sells during both 2009 and 2010. If we label it 2009, we would have a huge problem selling it in 2010. People respond very negatively to new things that sound as if they are old things. The car companies figured this out long ago, and we are following in their well-paved path. That is how the name for Magic 2010 came about.

FFS, the policy they say the use only APPLIES TO A PRODUCT RELEASED IN FREAKIN JULY. The above thing that MARO said applies to core sets that are RELEASED IN JULY, and the fact is, they don't care to explain how they would name a core set if they released it in April, because the fact is, CORE SETS ARE WILL NEVER BE RELEASED IN ANY OTHER MONTH OTHER THAN IN JULY.

What they said would be COMPLETELY DIFFERENT if it were released in APRIL, considering that a Magic 2010 would only be in 2010 for only 3 months, and someone buying a Magic 2010 in May 2010, which is pretty close to the middle of the year with still more than half a year to go, would feel ripped off when the newest product is actually Magic 2011, and Magic 2010 is no longer standard legal.

So what do I do? I give examples of other products, not made by WOTC, that also have the annual naming conventions, and so far, anything released Q1 will have the same year attached to the name, and anything released Q3 and Q4 will have one year ahead attached to its name. I can't saying anything for Q2, which is April, May, June, but that is how other companies do it. That article says NOTHING about how they would name a core set if they were to release it in either Q1 or Q2 of the calendar year.

This, is why you don't get it. You seem to apply that article to a product that is released any time of the year, but that article only has a July release in mind. Do the same crap to a product released in February 20th every year, and the consumer would be angry for playing a product that will expire just when they bought it.

I don't have a say for anything released in Q2 of the year, but anything released in June can have the current year or the next year attached to it, depending if the company wants the product to feel new, or if they don't want customers to feel ripped off for buying an old product when there is already a newer one released. If it was released in April or May, for sure, they should be using the current year rather than the next year. Maybe that's why there is not a lot of "annual" products released during Q2 is because they don't have to figure out which year to use.

http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazin...ly/feature/27a

What Year Is It?

One realization we came to as we examined our core sets was that our naming convention itself was probably more than a little scary to newer players. "Tenth Edition? I'm already nine editions behind? Do I need to start with the first edition?" Showing our age on the front of the box is not a great tactic for enticing people to try out a "new" game. To solve this problem, we took a page from car makers and the aforementioned Madden NFL video game franchise and are naming core sets after years—specifically the year after the product is released. That means this July's release will be called the Magic: The Gathering 2010 Core Set, or Magic 2010 for short. Heck, you can go even shorter than that if you like, calling it by what appears in the expansion symbol: "M10."

Is it odd that the product is not named for the year it was released in? A bit, but that's industry standard. It is more important that the product feel newer longer than for it to be accurate for six months and then seem outdated immediately thereafter. Trust me, you'll get used to it.

Again, this article only affects products released in Q3, that is July, August, September of the calendar year. It has no bearing to what happens when it is released in Q1 or Q2 of the year.

So you were saying that what other companies do does not affect WOTC's core set naming policy? LOLWUT?

[soupy_george]

I'd like to point out on the subject of the 20th anniversary that platinum is the symbol for the 20th year. As we can all see the Magic the gathering name has been changed from the normal black to platinum.

[Bogardan Mage]

Originally Posted by signofzeta

FFS, the policy they say the use only APPLIES TO A PRODUCT RELEASED IN FREAKIN JULY. The above thing that MARO said applies to core sets that are RELEASED IN JULY, and the fact is, they don't care to explain how they would name a core set if they released it in April, because the fact is, CORE SETS ARE WILL NEVER BE RELEASED IN ANY OTHER MONTH OTHER THAN IN JULY.

What they said would be COMPLETELY DIFFERENT if it were released in APRIL, considering that a Magic 2010 would only be in 2010 for only 3 months, and someone buying a Magic 2010 in May 2010, which is pretty close to the middle of the year with still more than half a year to go, would feel ripped off when the newest product is actually Magic 2011, and Magic 2010 is no longer standard legal.

So what do I do? I give examples of other products, not made by WOTC, that also have the annual naming conventions, and so far, anything released Q1 will have the same year attached to the name, and anything released Q3 and Q4 will have one year ahead attached to its name. I can't saying anything for Q2, which is April, May, June, but that is how other companies do it. That article says NOTHING about how they would name a core set if they were to release it in either Q1 or Q2 of the calendar year.

This, is why you don't get it. You seem to apply that article to a product that is released any time of the year, but that article only has a July release in mind. Do the same crap to a product released in February 20th every year, and the consumer would be angry for playing a product that will expire just when they bought it.

Alright, good, you're finally addressing an actual point. I'll give you Q1, because that's close enough to the beginning of the year and you're quite right about a "2012" product expiring in Feburary 2012, but do you really think that argument applies to Q2? Especially June, which was you original example? Also, my point is that they have actual reasons for doing this beyond "that's how it is" which is what you seemed to be arguing. Of course we have no idea how they'd do it at any other point in the year, but I still maintain that citing examples from completely unrelated companies is shakey evidence at best and should not be used, as you have used it, as though it were self explanatory and needed no furthur justification.

[signofzeta]

Originally Posted by Bogardan Mage

Alright, good, you're finally addressing an actual point. I'll give you Q1, because that's close enough to the beginning of the year and you're quite right about a "2012" product expiring in Feburary 2012, but do you really think that argument applies to Q2? Especially June, which was you original example? Also, my point is that they have actual reasons for doing this beyond "that's how it is" which is what you seemed to be arguing. Of course we have no idea how they'd do it at any other point in the year, but I still maintain that citing examples from completely unrelated companies is shakey evidence at best and should not be used, as you have used it, as though it were self explanatory and needed no furthur justification.

By the way, I edited my post, so you should re-read it.

As I recall, WOTC got the coreset annual naming conventions from Madden NFL video game series, and car companies, so don't go telling me that what unrelated companies do, aka a sports video game company, and a car company, doesn't affect what WOTC does, because in fact, it did. They also said something about this naming convention being industry standard? Perhaps you have heard of it?

Originally Posted by soupy_george

I'd like to point out on the subject of the 20th anniversary that platinum is the symbol for the 20th year. As we can all see the Magic the gathering name has been changed from the normal black to platinum.

Someone should really make a cake for the release of M13 core set that says "Happy nineteenth anniversary", then the staff of WOTC realizes that it is indeed 19 years of magic, and then they get embarrassed for celebrating a 19th anniversary with a bunch of 20s everywhere in the room. Sort of like how we all screwed up and celebrated the turn of the millennium when 1999 ended and 2000 started, but the fact is, that 0AD never existed, and the first AD year is 1 AD, so 2000 year later would be 2001, which is the actual year that is the turn of the millennium.

[Bogardan Mage]

Originally Posted by signofzeta

By the way, I edited my post, so you should re-read it.

As I recall, WOTC got the coreset annual naming conventions from Madden NFL video game series, and car companies, so don't go telling me that what unrelated companies do, aka a sports video game company, and a car company, doesn't affect what WOTC does, because in fact, it did.

I stand corrected, but they still didn't do it just because the other companies did. They all did it because it's just good business. You can understand why I didn't think much of your repeated citations of other companies while dismissing the core reason?

[signofzeta]

Originally Posted by Bogardan Mage

I stand corrected, but they still didn't do it just because the other companies did. They all did it because it's just good business. You can understand why I didn't think much of your repeated citations of other companies while dismissing the core reason?

I only used the yugioh and MLB comparisons just because they were released in Q1 of the year, to show you, that if MTG core sets were to be released in Q1, they would use the year that it is released in rather than the year after. That was what I was trying to say, because releasing a product that is one year ahead during Q1 is bad business practice.

I created a model as to what WOTC would have named the sets if it were released, and that is, Current year before July 1, and next year after and including July 1. I don't know if that's the model that everybody uses, but considering I don't have any data points for stuff released April, May or June, I don't have a say in Q2. If something were to be released Q2, it is up to the company as to what they want to do with the product.

Where the other companies come in is based on the fact that just like WOTC, they are using the same model because of good business practice. So using sports games, and Yugioh, I can create a hypothetical situation as to what WOTC would have named core sets if they released them in April for example.

I mentioned that Yugioh starter deck Dawn of the XYZ set prefix is called YS11 when it was released July 2011, while it would make sense to call it YS12. The fact is, the Japanese version was released March 2011, and changing its name would confuse the consumer and would make the consumer think that Starter Deck Dawn of the xyz correlated to Starter Deck 2012, while in reality, it is based off Starter Deck 2011. That is the exception to the rule. It's like saying a baseball game with the season starting early in the year saying MLB 12 is released in July in another region, does not make that game MLB 13. The game is still MLB 12. You don't change the year number when you port an existing game to a different system, or make another localization of an existing game, despite it releasing near the end of the year, while the original was released in the beginning of the year.

[MrPajitnov]

I my god the last three pages are incredibly painful to read. Seriously. I think all of you involved in that argument should go re-read that in a few weeks.

Anyways, to be honest I think it's gonna be a Johnny set. With their new focus on casual play I can see them celebrating 20 years by trying to make a set with all kinds of explosions, giant monsters and over the top effects from the history of the game. They also want to simplify standard play so a linear set with lots of bombs makes more sense.

[boneyardgates]

Dear WOTC,

Please dont give us announcements with such little to talk about anymore. Do you see what has happened? My head hurts from an extensive argument I wasnt even involved in. If you wouldve just given us a little something more to run with....

Thanks for nothing!

[signofzeta]

Originally Posted by boneyardgates

Dear WOTC,

Please dont give us announcements with such little to talk about anymore. Do you see what has happened? My head hurts from an extensive argument I wasnt even involved in. If you wouldve just given us a little something more to run with....

Thanks for nothing!

They would have to have an Announcing M13 announcement anyway, at least it is out of the way, and we don't have to worry about it. When I first saw it, I was like YEAAAHHH M13, I ALREADY KNEW THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE M13 YEAAAAH, then I kept staring at the logo and wondering why a the color was grey, and realized that it could have something to do with magic being 20 years old, then looked at the 10th anniversary, which was 8th edition release, which was released in 2003, and looked at the release date of M13, which says 2012, and I was like, wait a minute... Then I got anal over people claiming that M13 celebrates the 20th anniversary, because it doesn't.

At least we should be celebrating M13 as the fifteenth core set to be released haha. If you count Alpha and Beta as separate core sets. If you count Alpha and Beta as one core set, then M14 would be a bigger celebration, since it is 20 years of magic, and the 15th core set to be released.

[MrPajitnov]

yeah, let's stop arguing about that now. It's making the thread suck.