Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tomBitonti" data-source="post: 5924305" data-attributes="member: 13107">Hmm, I don't even think the facts, as listed, are incontrovertible.  Each statement frames a number of details, with a particular emphasis, which may or may not be reasonable.For example, the VTT and DDi failure, I would say, had little to do with the particular (truly horrific) tragedy which befell a part of the team.  Corporations are large, with many folks with overlapping skills, and a robust corporate environment would be able to absorb the loss.  From what I've gathered about the VTT and DDi strategy is that it vastly underappreciated the scope of the work, and incorrectly positioned Hasbro in a market where they had no particular technical or business skill.Regarding the "poison pill", that is true, but perhaps that is unimportant to the large majority of the D&D customer base.  If Hasbro had produced a vital suite of products, of If Hasbro had produced the license in a timely manner, the issue might have resolved much more favorably than it did.On the matter of firings, I can't say.  In a corporate environment, firings are a regular occurrence.  Corporations are not there to maintain a headcount, they are there to run a business.  Firings (or layoffs) will happen.  What matters is how the employee base is treated during the process (morale and loyalty do matter), and whether the selection of underperforming employees is open and efficient.  Here open means that employees are well aware of the process and their current ratings, not that they have a detailed view of other employees.I do think that one needs to look at both what was done, but also what could have been done, but wasn't.  For example, while having rough edges, I'd say the open playtest of D&D Next makes for a huge difference in comparison to 4E.  To provide my own answers to the question, I don't think one has to dig very deep.  Hasbro described a potential product, then failed to deliver on that product.  Hasbro also took steps to remove products (prior editions, PDFs, the magazines) which were valued.  Hasbro put a spin on their marketing which was insulting.As a conclusion, I'm not sure if Hasbro could have avoided much of the vitriol, as it wrested the reins of control from players.  D&D has been largely a hobbiest driven game, with a large amount of content constructed by players.  Hasbro has been attempting to insert itself, by assuming control of content delivery, into the player to player value equation.  On the plus side of doing so, that can lead to better quality standards and more efficient product creations (which should mean more good content).  On the minus, players are disempowered, which stings.TomB</blockquote>

Verification