But is there a limit on how much people can spend on games that are not considered as belonging to the same category as Game of War, such as Hearthstone or Magic: The Gathering? Granted, the addictive mechanics are not as overt, but potentially you could spend a lot there as well.
It’s a question of intent by the business as well.
Blizzard and Wizards of the Sword coast, despite getting into similar mechanics as F2P games, are still companies that largely extract value from customers as a byproduct of providing them with fun experiences. Companies like that in the article are different, usually extracting value by producing thinly-veiled gambling experiences that prey on the fallacies in our internal reward systems.
Both kinds of companies have access to the same tools and tricks to manipulate our reward systems. But how we play depends on the intention.
afaik pro players either borrow their cards from stores, or are running stores in order to have access to the cards.
Almost none of them would be able to play the game at their level while also paying for their working tools. But, somehow, they are shown as examples to players without these connections...
If I can give an advice to anyone willing to play somewhat competitive magic without mortgaging their house, play block pauper magic.
The difference is in GoW battles between armies destroy the armies. Nobody would play M:TG if every time you lost a land it went into a shredder. Now imagine your Power 7 are set on fire before you eyes when you lose instead. GoW is designed to consume resources which can only be replaced by unrealistic wait times (days, weeks) or purchased for cash.
At least for the ycombinator crowd, the lesson learned should be how to design such a game assuming your morals allow it. I briefly considered writing a parody that openly abused you for spending money in game. BROADCAST: "Hey everyone, this idiot just spent $10 on some bits on a server in California!" But yeah I would feel bad even making money from that game, and it seemed like a lot of work for something that would probably net $35.
Much more than a decade, I'd wager! Ante stopped being standard quite a long time ago. Personally I stopped playing in 1997 and ante had already ceased to be a common practice in my area several years before that, from what I remember.
Just googled it and the last card to even have an ante-impacting ability was printed in 1996. Seems it stuck around as an optional rule but wasn't common in my experience, probably because tournaments always skipped it.
That is only true for constructed (I've known people who made a living out of playing 8-4 drafts on mtgo). And even for constructed, it is only pay to win up to a point where everyone has access to all the cards (by either buying or borrowing), which is where most competitive constructed players are.
Last I checked, pro gaming was always a mix of constructed and draft/sealed, which meant you couldn't reach top level without practicing both extensively.
A full edition set costing in the thousands, and there being 3-4 sets per year, the price to compete is fairly high.
If you don't aspire to be a pro player and just want to have fun, you can compete in limited only. I have friends who do that. I myself chose phantom sealed deck tournaments on mtgo, which, provided you don't suck, are basically free.
Only in constructed formats (where you build a deck out of your entire collection). In limited formats (which are hugely popular), you and people you play against build decks out of a common pool of cards. There is an entry fee and there are awards for finishing in top spots. So, in the long run, if your win rate is high enough, you can play for free or even make money, but if you suck, you're going to spend a lot.
In order to get to the cash prizes, you have to train a lot, and the price of training is high enough that you have got to resell cards to profit (although online versions made it easier to acquire draft/sealed xp).
