Rate WotC as a company

[ki11erDM]

And that sentiment should work in reverse, no?

/agree

I voted a 5 but that is because I have personal dealings with WoTC is a few different capacities over the years (none directly relating to D&D) and all my experiences were overwhelmingly positive.

Unless someone had overwhelmingly positive experiences with the actual company I would expect a 2-4 response.

 

[El Mahdi]

As of this time, the average rating for WoTC is 2.89. The average rating for Paizo on the related thread is 4.12. WoTC, you are in trouble.

 

[Jack99]

5) Lastly, their advertisement. As someone else stated, their statement of "We have no plans for 4e" on the same month as their 4e announcement.

This is just blatantly false and has been refuted more times that I can remember. Of course this was before you joined the boards, so you might be unaware of that.

 

[Pygon]

3.

Yes, without them we wouldn't have 3.0, 3.5, the SRD and the OGL.

But their demeanor towards the customer base and my perception of how they operate internally just doesn't groove well with me. Their products lack that certain something and I always feel like they are holding something back. Wanting more should come from getting mostly what you want from a product, not simply what you paid for or hoping the next book is better. I won't bother talking about their handling of 4e marketing (wait, I just did, sorry).

 

[Dragnmoon]

Though I am not a D&D fan at all, It has been my players choice of a game for the last 8 years. WotC did amazing things With D&D compared to my absolute hatred of D&D before WotC.

After WotC the game went from 'never touch list' to my 'Ok I will play if I have to list'

During my games I always refused any 3pp material to be added to my game because I thought their products could not compare to WotC products and Unbalanced the system..

Then in the last few years their products started getting worse, though I mostly allowed them into the game, I felt that they were hurting the system, and the Fluff in the books was pretty bad *There was a few good ones*

Now this was all balanced out by Paizo and their Dragon and Dungeon mags that I always allowed in my games because I always saw them as part of D&D and WotC's game.

When they took the mags away from Paizo for the first time I found myself in a bind... what dod I do... do I buy the great products by Paizo and allow non sactioned D&D stuff into my game Or do I ban it like I had done with past 3pp..

I made the decision to Start a Pathfinder Caimpagn which I loved!

Once WotC moved to 4th Edition and I realized 4e could not support my current caimpagn with out major revamps, was when I realized my faith in WotC was lacking. Though in gerneral I am not a hater of 4e, It just does not fit my game.

Some day in the Future i may go 4e. but right now I can't, and with that and the poor quality of thier products the last few years.. I had to put them at a 3.

 

[Invisible Stalker]

I'll go with three.

The DDI problems, the quality of the books, whatever they were trying to pass off as character sheets and what's happened to Avalon Hill are all problem areas. However, as the greatest Bard of all once said, "The play is the thing." I love playing 4e itself, so I'll give WOTC a passing grade.

 

[Darrin Drader]

Y'mean, the Hasbro that had already owned WotC 3-4 years before you did any WotC books?

Yes, the very same Hasbro that owned WotC and exerted more and more corporate influence over the company while I was there, changing the culture for the worse little by little over time. That Hasbro.

Yeah, they suddenly pulled a 180 and started directly interfering with a subsidiary despite years of precedent for not doing such, and claims by employees of various subsidiaries that this never happens.

This "Hasbro is the interfering Anti-Christ" drumbeat is pretty tired by now, especially since it's never had any evidence brought to support it.

From the Hasbro 2007 Annual Report:

Our business is dependent on intellectual property rights and we may not be able to protect such rights successfully. In addition, we have a material amount of acquired product rights which, if impaired, would result in a reduction of our income.

Our intellectual property, including our license agreements and other agreements that establish our ownership rights and maintain the confidentiality of our intellectual property, are of great value. We rely on a combination of trade secret, copyright, trademark, patent and other proprietary rights laws to protect our rights to valuable intellectual property related to our brands. From time to time, third parties have challenged, and may in the future try to challenge, our ownership of our intellectual property. In addition, our business is subject to the risk of third parties counterfeiting our products or infringing on our intellectual property rights. We may need to resort to litigation to protect our intellectual property rights, which could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources. Our failure to protect our intellectual property rights could harm our business and competitive position. Much of our intellectual property has been internally developed and has no carrying value on our balance sheet. As of December 30, 2007, we had approximately $486,232 of acquired product and licensing rights included in other assets on our balance sheet. Declines in the profitability of the acquired brands or licensed products may impact our ability to recover the carrying value of the related assets and could result in an impairment charge. Reduction in our net income caused by impairment charges could harm our financial results.

Sounds kind of paranoid to me. If this is an important idea coming down from corporate, it could influence why they would choose to see 3rd party publishers as competition instead of partners.

 

[DaveMage]

As of this time, the average rating for WoTC is 2.89. The average rating for Paizo on the related thread is 4.12. WoTC, you are in trouble.

I'm sure they are crying all the way to the bank.

 

[The Little Raven]

Yes, the very same Hasbro that owned WotC and exerted more and more corporate influence over the company while I was there, changing the culture for the worse little by little over time. That Hasbro.

And you can prove that this was Hasbro's doing, and not simply the same internal WotC culture shift that made Peter Adkinson once remark that WotC was no longer a company at which he desired to work (before the Hasbro buy-out)? WotC changed from 'friendly nerd haven' to 'sales-driven marketing beast' well before Hasbro became involved.

From the Hasbro 2007 Annual Report:

That's nice. However, I fail to see what a report that talks about steps Hasbro may have to take to protect it's Intellectual Property from outside competitors has to do with my statement about Hasbro's "interference" in the workings of their subsidiary companies.

It's a huge step from "We may have to litigate to protect our IP" to "We interfere in the internal workings of our subsidiaries."

Sounds kind of paranoid to me.

Sounds par for the course to me, as most corporations with several large intellectual properties tend to make moves to protect them.

If this is an important idea coming down from corporate, it could influence why they would choose to see 3rd party publishers as competition instead of partners.

The "if" is the problem... IF they interfere with subsidiaries, then there could be a problem, but the problem is the lack of evidence that they do so.

Things change at companies without any external factors (like a parent company) exerting any influence. I'll use my company as an example. Independently owned, my company just underwent a large personnel shift because one founder was able to force the other out. The same guys that founded the studio have changed in the years since the formation. It's all internal. And it's why I'm polishing up the ol' resume, because the change is not one I like but cannot be laid at the feet of any external party.

 

[Darrin Drader]

And you can prove that this was Hasbro's doing, and not simply the same internal WotC culture shift that made Peter Adkinson once remark that WotC was no longer a company at which he desired to work (before the Hasbro buy-out)? WotC changed from 'friendly nerd haven' to 'sales-driven marketing beast' well before Hasbro became involved.

I can't prove anything. All I can say is that as a former insider, I witnessed the company change while I was there as a direct result of Hasbro, and I'm fairly certain that it continued to change after I left. The fact that Loren Greenwood was replaced by a Hasbro CEO suggests to me that the parent company wants more direct control. Now, to slightly knock my own argument, I fully aknowledge that things were moving along very nicely under Chuck Huebner, who was also placed there by Hasbro.

At any rate, take my opinion with a grain of salt if you will, but it is based on my direct experience with the company.