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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Croesus" data-source="post: 5925857" data-attributes="member: 35019">Definitely bad management here, though I'd argue this one is less about managing the brand and more about simply delivering the services promised. Any company that makes commitments and fails to meet them is going to upset their customers. About the only company that gets a pass for this is Blizzard and only because their customers expect an amazing product in the end. If Blizzard ever slips in quality, they'll lose their teflon coating in a hurry.This is more mixed and touches on my earlier comments about risk/reward. A case can be made that the way WOTC handled the GSL led directly to Pathfinder, but would different choices really have kept Pathfinder (or something similar) from being developed? And how many current Pathfinder customers would be WOTC customers if Pathfinder didn't exist? Keep in mind that the OGL itself was not seen as a positive contributor to WOTC's bottom line at this time, so moving away from it was a reasonable (if controversial) decision. Clearly WOTC could have handled communicating the GSL better, but I'm uncertain if having the GSL itself was a "mistake".Honestly, how many D&D players even know about these layoffs? And how many of those care enough to be bothered by them? This one strikes me as an Internet sensation - something a few thousand folks know about, but having pretty much zero impact on the D&D brand among WOTC's vast customer base.</blockquote>

Verification