WotC before Hasbro. The way we were.

[Azure Trance]

 

[Henry]

I edited the above, but I'll leave the letters, since (A) they are brief, and (B) they look like they fall close enough to "fair use."

But I'll make this statement: Beyond what the articles say about WotC, what does it say about attitudes about WotC? The company today is vastly different from when Peter ran it - this much is clear. But it seems like people are forgetting the "Three Blind Men and the Elephant" tale - everyone is going to have a different impression of the company given their personal relationship with it, due to its size.

Before anyone goes condemning the company, they need to look at it objectively, because it was done at least as much harm as good. (IMHO, it has done more good than harm, but I'm sure I'm biased by previous positive experiences.)

 

[Darrin Drader]

Before anyone goes condemning the company, they need to look at it objectively, because it was done at least as much harm as good. (IMHO, it has done more good than harm, but I'm sure I'm biased by previous positive experiences.)

First of all, while I am a WotC employee, I really don't know the Hasbro company culture. They are on the other side of the country, but when I do interract with their representatives, they are friendly and helpful, not at all unlike the people from other departments within Wizards.

Disclaimer aside, in ten years it will be interesting to look at WotC and determine whether Hasbro killed it or saved it. Remember that in the wake of the Pokemon crash, many people in much more important positions than mine have said that layoffs would have been inevitable under Peter as well as Hasbro. Hasbro, being a much larger company, has the resources and the business sense to survive hard times. I wonder how old Wizards would be faring right now had Peter kept it after the Pokemon crash.

I will also say this: Every person that touches the D&D brand within WotC cares very deepy about it. Aside from R&D, the business minds are also dedicated players.

 

[satori01]

I think a lot of people are ultimately torn in their opinions about the Coporate masters of D&D from their experience of the ineptly ran Willams TSR.

In some ways while people fear D&D being run from a smaller less profesional company, they also fear D&D being ran distantly from a larger company willing to sacrifice some quality for the sake of wringing every bit of profit it possibly can.

Peter Adkinson clearly loved D&D and the launch of 3e was about as lovingly supported as it possibly could get. Beyond that it was also a very sound buisness decision, as it probably ensured it keep a lot the retread ol'D&D players that returned to the game out of retierment. I believe if say Hasbro had bought TSR directly w/o any WOTC involvement the roleout would probably have been very similiar.

Of course Hasbro Coporate culture probably could never had identified D&D as a good venture in it's deflated form.

The thing about this article that has always bugged me, is that all the aspects that he associates with Coporate Utopia, excessive largese in fringed benefits, overhighering to make a community, and blending the lines between the personal and work, are all just bad buisness techniques.

Branding is important, very important. It doesnt seem that way when you are in a relatively small market, or in a niche market and satisfied with just maintaining your niche share, however when try to expand your share and reach an expanding audience, a consitent message is essential.