Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Wizards of the Coast distributed equity as a startup

peteradkison.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–128 of 128 posts

Re: How Wizards of the Coast distributed equity as a startup

#121

Post by DonHopkins »

anonymoushn wrote: post #82
DonHopkins wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like they're on the right side of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Hi, The Dunning-Kruger effect doesn't actually cause people who are good at a thing to say they suck at it and people who are awful to say they are good. In the paper, most tests found that estimated ability was positively correlated with ability, but had a lower slope. Thanks.

You must be an expert in the Dunning-Kruger effect, so I defer to your superior knowledge.

I got my misinformation that "highly skilled individuals tend to rate their ability lower than is accurate" and "skilled individuals tend to underestimate their relative competence, erroneously assuming that tasks which are easy for them are also easy for others", from the wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect . Maybe you should correct that erroneous article with your competent, highly skilled insights.

Re: How Wizards of the Coast distributed equity as a startup

#122

Post by rozap »

STRML wrote: post #100
rozap wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You should be completely mistrustful of anyone who offers you shares and doesn't tell you the # of shares outstanding AKA every VC funded startup ever

I've had this happen to me, and quitting was one of the best decisions I ever made. If you can't be upfront about equity, it's a symptom of a much larger problem.

I'm in that position now, and the more I think about it the more it bugs me. I think you're absolutely right.

Re: How Wizards of the Coast distributed equity as a startup

#123

Post by JoeAltmaier »

DonHopkins wrote: post #120
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, rather than simple inflation they've invented a way to 'pump' the cards, alternating powerful and weak by category. Even better profits! You don't have to be the least bit creative to do that; you just wait for the old cards to get worn out then reprint them in cycles. Great.

Is criticizing Magic the Gathering as being evil, vindictive, manipulative and profit oriented a way you've invented to 'pump' your Kickstarter project? Why aren't you also criticizing MTG for blatantly promoting Satanism, or does your card game to that too? ;) http://church-of-illumination.com/mtg-satanic-evidence

Don't be silly. Its the dozens of disenfranchised young people in our game club that motivated the game, not the other way around. They were frustrated and disappointed that every time they built a Magic deck, another edition would obsolete it. They felt like fools; they gave up on the game. This was a way to get them interested in gaming again.

Re: How Wizards of the Coast distributed equity as a startup

#124

Post by JoeAltmaier »

negativeview wrote: post #118
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, rather than simple inflation they've invented a way to 'pump' the cards, alternating powerful and weak by category. Even better profits! You don't have to be the least bit creative to do that; you just wait for the old cards to get worn out then reprint them in cycles. Great.

Yes, they make profit. No, they aren't somehow evil, vindictive, or manipulative while doing so. This line of conversation is not at all productive. You're convinced that they're evil incarnate and will switch from one ill-informed claim (endless inflation) to another (just mindlessly reprinting old cards) on a whim. I'm not interested in getting into an endless Internet argument.

Sorry if my tone is harsh; the frustration of the young people in my club has rubbed off on me.

The evil part is all projection. The objection I (we) have is with the apparently manipulative program of cycling cards to make you keep buying new ones. Its not a mistake to think this is happening - its the process you describe. We're not the only ones to think this way - the game designers felt the need to defend themselves against the accusations as you so helpfully pointed out. Thus we can't be the only ones to be frustrated in this way.

You're convinced all the marketing is ok, not an problem. Fine, you have the money to sink into it. But we're not all like that, we're not all apologists for the company.

And some of us have done something about it. Do you blame us? Is it wrong to find another way to deliver a card game that solves some of the admitted problems with existing ones?

Re: How Wizards of the Coast distributed equity as a startup

#125

Post by negativeview »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #124
negativeview wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, they make profit. No, they aren't somehow evil, vindictive, or manipulative while doing so. This line of conversation is not at all productive. You're convinced that they're evil incarnate and will switch from one ill-informed claim (endless inflation) to another (just mindlessly reprinting old cards) on a whim. I'm not interested in getting into an endless Internet argument.

Sorry if my tone is harsh; the frustration of the young people in my club has rubbed off on me. The evil part is all projection. The objection I (we) have is with the apparently manipulative program of cycling cards to make you keep buying new ones. Its not a mistake to think this is happening - its the process you describe. We're not the only ones to think this way - the game designers felt the need to defend themse…

You only "need" to upgrade your deck if you want to play competitively. The vast majority of Magic players (according to Wizards' own research) play casually with no format restrictions.

On top of that, Wizards supports Modern, which is non-rotating, and (to a lesser degree, because of the reserve list) support Legacy and Vintage as well.

If you want to draft without dumping money into it, there's Cube.

There's a million different ways to play Magic, and only some of them have the "problem" you describe.

I put quotes around problem because the rotation is actually a solution to a different problem: staleness. In Modern, Melira Pod has been one of the top decks for several years. There are a group of people that do not want to play against the same deck all the time, hence rotation. Wizards does plenty to support those that want to play a non-rotating format.

I'm not an "apologist" I'm just using my knowledge of the facts (ie, Modern exists and is supported) and common sense (what's the alternative to printing more cards? just ... stopping?).

Re: How Wizards of the Coast distributed equity as a startup

#127

Post by benmathes »

bmajz wrote: post #106
joshu wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so how do you propose that change?

This. Having been on both sides of the table (early employee and later a founder), I still struggle with what the right distribution would and should be. There are just so many factors to consider (pivots, investors, acquirers, risk) that it seems unlikely that a simple formula or blanket rule will guide people right. Probably case-by-case basis and a realization that information asymmetry + control in early stage co…

Yeah, I don't know the right breakdown. I just know that your run-of-the-mill founding teams (not founders, the teams) are relatively shafted.

Re: How Wizards of the Coast distributed equity as a startup

#128

Post by tptacek »

mentat wrote: post #93
tptacek wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably not, or that already would have happened. It hasn't. One problem is that a lot of people look at equity grants as a meritorious service award. But that's not at all what they are; they're compensation for risk. Developers look at risk compensation and say, "well, I undertook a lot of risk to work long hours for a lower wage". That's true, but the market prices that kind of risk, and the market cares a lot ab…

> That's true, but the market prices that kind of risk, and the market cares a lot about substitutes, and the typical developer taking basis points for their participation is eminently replaceable by other developers. If all you're hiring with your first employees are replaceable people, you're doing it wrong and will probably fail. Those people not only have to work long hours, they have to work them well. It's like…

This is one of those things that sounds true but I think probably isn't. Business isn't an RTS, and most startups aren't really in an APM race.
Post reply on HN