Which I found on Reddit and is astonishingly bone-headed, even by the standards of our industry:
(https://i.imgur.com/TB9a2PH.png)
Does anyone, anywhere, have a smidgen of proof backing this up? I would love for it to be true.
Sounds like just another day at the office for any large corporation.
I have no corroborating evidence of this, but I want to believe it because unlike many here, I don't believe that Hasbro is this rectifying influence on WotC--about to reel it in at any moment--but an old corporate parasite, just like any other major corporation. Probably drowning in bureaucracy. And this reaffirms my negative opinions of it. :P
Plausible, but one wonders:
There had been discussion that WotC had mismanaged numerous board games that Hasbro had farmed out to them. Was this Hasbro misreading the situation, thinking WotC was expending resources on their books rather than their boardgames?
Also, I know corporate entities are stupid, but leaving millions of dollars on the table makes me want more corroboration than some redditor.
I've worked for companies that have happily shut down whole lines that were profitable, but they weren't profitable enough. So can easily see something like this happening.
Quote from: VisionStorm on October 28, 2020, 07:30:04 AM
I have no corroborating evidence of this, but I want to believe it because unlike many here, I don't believe that Hasbro is this rectifying influence on WotC--about to reel it in at any moment--but an old corporate parasite, just like any other major corporation. Probably drowning in bureaucracy. And this reaffirms my negative opinions of it. :P
Agreed. Thanks, Free Market.
Quote from: lordmalachdrim on October 28, 2020, 08:10:06 AM
I've worked for companies that have happily shut down whole lines that were profitable, but they weren't profitable enough. So can easily see something like this happening.
Yep. It's all about ROI. They may have decided they could get a better return on that capital elsewhere in the company.
Quote from: Nerzenjäger on October 28, 2020, 08:16:40 AM
Agreed. Thanks, Free Market.
I hate comments like these because they are unproductive and imply that there would be somehow less bureaucracy and more product without a free market.
If I'm remembering Ryan Dancey's TSR postmortem correctly, there is a long and unproud history of whoever owns D&D failing to make money from novels based on D&D properties, even when the novels regularly become best sellers.
Quote from: Nerzenjäger on October 28, 2020, 08:16:40 AM
Agreed. Thanks, Free Market.
This isn't the Free Market, it's government regulations and supporting tort law regarding what can be considered "corporate malfeasance."
Basically, as the laws are currently set up, a publically held corporation can be sued by its shareholders for not doing everything possible to maximize their profits. It's not enough to just be profitable; you have to prove you're making the shareholders as much money as you can possibly make or you are in violation of the regulations and can be sued for outrageous sums.
Big corporations are literally not allowed by government regulations to do what's best for their customers or longevity of their product lines unless those things also make the shareholders more money.
The Free Market would allow corporations to choose customer service or paying their employees a fair wage or making improvements that ensure the corporation's longevity and, if shareholders are unhappy with those choices, they can sell their shares and put their money elsewhere.
The Not-So-Free-Market says anything other than maximizing profits for investors is a crime. In shutting down the novels Hasbro was certainly just following the regulations for corporate governance because the money spent on those novels could make more profit producing [insert that year's hottest toy line].
Bottom Line... if you care about the quality of your product, never allow your company to become publicly traded, nor sell your IP to a corporation even if they say you'll retain creative control no matter how much money they dangle in front of you. As soon as some bean counter thinks they have an idea to improve profits doing something anathema to your vision... you're either going to have to do it or be ousted for failing to be as profitable as possible.
This is also how the Woke work their way in too... they convince the bean counters that there's a whole untapped market of Woke customers out there and suddenly you find your RPG saddled with a "sensitivity reader" to ensure it complies with what the bean counters have been convinced will lead to improved profits.
And then when the profits fail to materialize because the Woke were lying through their teeth, the bean counters don't take responsibility for putting the RPG in an impossible situation... they cancel the RPG for not being profitable enough relative to the bean counters' projections.
So, yeah, I fully believe Hasbro pulled exactly that maneuver... and I fully believe they'll do it again once WokeTC runs D&D into the ground chasing phantom woke customers (at which point the IP will go into other lines to maintain the trademarks and, at best, any further RPG material using the D&D IP will be licensed properties that shift companies every few years the same way Star Wars does because Hasbro corporate governance will demand unrealistic licensing costs the moment it starts to turn a profit).
Quote from: Dimitrios on October 28, 2020, 10:00:58 AM
If I'm remembering Ryan Dancey's TSR postmortem correctly, there is a long and unproud history of whoever owns D&D failing to make money from novels based on D&D properties, even when the novels regularly become best sellers.
Said post mortem can be read here (https://insaneangel.com/insaneangel/RPG/Dancey.html).
Quote from: Xisiqomelir on October 28, 2020, 03:23:37 AMDoes anyone, anywhere, have a smidgen of proof backing this up? I would love for it to be true.
While it's true that Hasbro made a deal with HarperCollins in 2016 which cut out there less profitable books, that snippet doesn't explain how WotC was working on new DragonLance novels with Penguin and not HarperCollins.
Hasbro has a long history of letting their IP go fallow for several years, thus trying to create excitement when a line returns. This could have been their thinking in 2016 if the D&D line of novels weren't selling particularly well.
Quote from: VisionStorm on October 28, 2020, 07:30:04 AM
I have no corroborating evidence of this, but I want to believe it because unlike many here, I don't believe that Hasbro is this rectifying influence on WotC--about to reel it in at any moment--but an old corporate parasite, just like any other major corporation. Probably drowning in bureaucracy. And this reaffirms my negative opinions of it. :P
Exactly, Hasbro sitting down with WotC and giving them a fatherly talk about being too woke is total fantasy. If the WotC drama even registers with them, it will be in the context of a balance sheet.
Quote from: Chris24601 on October 28, 2020, 10:34:10 AM
Quote from: Nerzenjäger on October 28, 2020, 08:16:40 AM
Agreed. Thanks, Free Market.
This isn't the Free Market, it's government regulations and supporting tort law regarding what can be considered "corporate malfeasance."
Basically, as the laws are currently set up, a publically held corporation can be sued by its shareholders for not doing everything possible to maximize their profits. It's not enough to just be profitable; you have to prove you're making the shareholders as much money as you can possibly make or you are in violation of the regulations and can be sued for outrageous sums.
Big corporations are literally not allowed by government regulations to do what's best for their customers or longevity of their product lines unless those things also make the shareholders more money.
The Free Market would allow corporations to choose customer service or paying their employees a fair wage or making improvements that ensure the corporation's longevity and, if shareholders are unhappy with those choices, they can sell their shares and put their money elsewhere.
The Not-So-Free-Market says anything other than maximizing profits for investors is a crime. In shutting down the novels Hasbro was certainly just following the regulations for corporate governance because the money spent on those novels could make more profit producing [insert that year's hottest toy line].
Bottom Line... if you care about the quality of your product, never allow your company to become publicly traded, nor sell your IP to a corporation even if they say you'll retain creative control no matter how much money they dangle in front of you. As soon as some bean counter thinks they have an idea to improve profits doing something anathema to your vision... you're either going to have to do it or be ousted for failing to be as profitable as possible.
This is also how the Woke work their way in too... they convince the bean counters that there's a whole untapped market of Woke customers out there and suddenly you find your RPG saddled with a "sensitivity reader" to ensure it complies with what the bean counters have been convinced will lead to improved profits.
And then when the profits fail to materialize because the Woke were lying through their teeth, the bean counters don't take responsibility for putting the RPG in an impossible situation... they cancel the RPG for not being profitable enough relative to the bean counters' projections.
So, yeah, I fully believe Hasbro pulled exactly that maneuver... and I fully believe they'll do it again once WokeTC runs D&D into the ground chasing phantom woke customers (at which point the IP will go into other lines to maintain the trademarks and, at best, any further RPG material using the D&D IP will be licensed properties that shift companies every few years the same way Star Wars does because Hasbro corporate governance will demand unrealistic licensing costs the moment it starts to turn a profit).
Public Corporations and the protections they buy from legislators are as far away from Free Market Capitalism as you can get.
Quote from: rytrasmi on October 28, 2020, 10:42:23 AM
Quote from: VisionStorm on October 28, 2020, 07:30:04 AM
I have no corroborating evidence of this, but I want to believe it because unlike many here, I don't believe that Hasbro is this rectifying influence on WotC--about to reel it in at any moment--but an old corporate parasite, just like any other major corporation. Probably drowning in bureaucracy. And this reaffirms my negative opinions of it. :P
Exactly, Hasbro sitting down with WotC and giving them a fatherly talk about being too woke is total fantasy. If the WotC drama even registers with them, it will be in the context of a balance sheet.
I doubt Hasbro would ever just tell WOTC to cut it out. We do know from people working there that they can and will tighten the dogs leash if it screws up enough to get the higher ups notice. Which seems to be few and far between. They seem pretty content to let WOTC dig their own grave rather than reign them in in a more direct manner and no clue what triggers them taking notice.
So no they arent going to come in and say "no more SJW". Instead they will most likely cut budgeting or issue another ultimatum to get profits up or else. I cant really see Hasbro looking at the problem and seeing the SJW problem as something to be dealt with.
As for the book situation. Seems weird as wouldnt they have known WOTC had a book branch when they acquired them? Seems more likely its just WOTC being WOTC and trying to deflect blame.
But.
Having seen multiple times how companies can and will kill off profitable venues. All bets are off as to wither Hasbro did or didnt. We are likely never going to know the truth. I can ask a few novelists I know who have worked for TSR and WOTC. But I doubt theyd know why things went as they did.
But considering its WOTC. Part of me wants to lay good odds that this book deal thing from 2016 is just another of their long list of screwups. This is the company after all that would rather burn product or dump it in a landfill rather than sell it. This is also the same WOTC that laid down their own edict to a line to sell well or be cancelled. Then overproduced it, and cancelled the game and burned said excess when it sold far better than their deadline.
WOTC is made of distilled failure. And if they cant fail then they will self sabotage till they do fail.
I stopped reading any of their novels years ago because the quality seemed to be on a steady decline. Considering it started, at best, as "Kind of, sort of, if you overlook a few screw ups, a decent yarn," there wasn't a whole lot of room in which to decline and still be worth my time to read it free from the library, let alone pay for it.
Did it improve at all in the last, say, decade? If not, what is there worth saving?
Quote from: Omega on October 28, 2020, 01:11:49 PMAs for the book situation. Seems weird as wouldnt they have known WOTC had a book branch when they acquired them? Seems more likely its just WOTC being WOTC and trying to deflect blame.
Hasbro bought WotC in 1999 but didn't make this book deal until 2016, 17 years later. It seems to me far more likely that D&D books weren't selling all that well in 2015 and Hasbro didn't see the point in WotC having their own book branch. From what happened to Dragonlance, it's more likely than not that Hasbro made the right move.
Quote from: Chris24601 on October 28, 2020, 10:34:10 AM
Basically, as the laws are currently set up, a publically held corporation can be sued by its shareholders for not doing everything possible to maximize their profits. It's not enough to just be profitable; you have to prove you're making the shareholders as much money as you can possibly make or you are in violation of the regulations and can be sued for outrageous sums.
Big corporations are literally not allowed by government regulations to do what's best for their customers or longevity of their product lines unless those things also make the shareholders more money.
If this was true then you could sue Hasbro for not producing novels and therefore not doing "everything possible to maximise their profits"
Quote from: Shasarak on October 28, 2020, 03:48:53 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on October 28, 2020, 10:34:10 AM
Basically, as the laws are currently set up, a publically held corporation can be sued by its shareholders for not doing everything possible to maximize their profits. It's not enough to just be profitable; you have to prove you're making the shareholders as much money as you can possibly make or you are in violation of the regulations and can be sued for outrageous sums.
Big corporations are literally not allowed by government regulations to do what's best for their customers or longevity of their product lines unless those things also make the shareholders more money.
If this was true then you could sue Hasbro for not producing novels and therefore not doing "everything possible to maximise their profits"
Maximizing revenue would say you must produce novels (and everything else that can be sold). Maximizing profits may not. Corporate officers in a public company don't have a duty to maximize revenue. Their duty is to maximize shareholder wealth via stock prices & dividends.
Quote from: Bren on October 28, 2020, 05:05:10 PM
Quote from: Shasarak on October 28, 2020, 03:48:53 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on October 28, 2020, 10:34:10 AM
Basically, as the laws are currently set up, a publically held corporation can be sued by its shareholders for not doing everything possible to maximize their profits. It's not enough to just be profitable; you have to prove you're making the shareholders as much money as you can possibly make or you are in violation of the regulations and can be sued for outrageous sums.
Big corporations are literally not allowed by government regulations to do what's best for their customers or longevity of their product lines unless those things also make the shareholders more money.
If this was true then you could sue Hasbro for not producing novels and therefore not doing "everything possible to maximise their profits"
Maximizing revenue would say you must produce novels (and everything else that can be sold). Maximizing profits may not. Corporate officers in a public company don't have a duty to maximize revenue. Their duty is to maximize shareholder wealth via stock prices & dividends.
If you can not make profit from selling your IP then you are not doing "everything possible" and therefore should be sued to remove you from the company and replaced with some one who can.
Quote from: Shasarak on October 28, 2020, 07:26:07 PMIf you can not make profit from selling your IP then you are not doing "everything possible" and therefore should be sued to remove you from the company and replaced with some one who can.
This is irrelevant to my point and unrelated to your earlier comment. Also, just plain wrong. Good luck trying to prevail in that lawsuit.
Quote from: Bren on October 28, 2020, 09:08:28 PM
Quote from: Shasarak on October 28, 2020, 07:26:07 PMIf you can not make profit from selling your IP then you are not doing "everything possible" and therefore should be sued to remove you from the company and replaced with some one who can.
This is irrelevant to my point and unrelated to your earlier comment. Also, just plain wrong. Good luck trying to prevail in that lawsuit.
Which brings us around quite nicely to my earlier comment:
Quote from: Shasarak on October 28, 2020, 03:48:53 PM
If this was true then you could sue Hasbro for not producing novels and therefore not doing "everything possible to maximise their profits"
Quote from: Shasarak on October 28, 2020, 07:26:07 PM
If you can not make profit from selling your IP then you are not doing "everything possible" and therefore should be sued to remove you from the company and replaced with some one who can.
Making value for the shareholders (the obligation)
does not equal making a profit with a specific, given IP.
Ask GM where Pontiac, Saturn, and Oldsmobile went...and why.
Hasbro just not giving a crap and letting the inmates run the asylum at WoTC does not surprise me at all. So many large companies are horribly mismanaged, but coast on the strength of their brand anyway.
As for DnD, the last time I can think of that DnD was under competent management was when Gary Gygax and Don Kayne were running TSR out of Gary's basement in Lake Geneva Wisconsin. It's a testament to the strength of DnD as a brand that it has managed to survive some truly epically bad management over the years. Remember Lorraine Williams?
Quote from: Torque2100 on October 29, 2020, 06:51:00 AM
Hasbro just not giving a crap and letting the inmates run the asylum at WoTC does not surprise me at all. So many large companies are horribly mismanaged, but coast on the strength of their brand anyway.
As for DnD, the last time I can think of that DnD was under competent management was when Gary Gygax and Don Kayne were running TSR out of Gary's basement in Lake Geneva Wisconsin. It's a testament to the strength of DnD as a brand that it has managed to survive some truly epically bad management over the years. Remember Lorraine Williams?
The real irony of Williams's tenure was that the Buck Rogers IP wasn't a bad one. We probably could've gotten a decent RPG out of it, but the silly bint didn't want to actually playtest anything.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 29, 2020, 08:13:12 AM
Quote from: Torque2100 on October 29, 2020, 06:51:00 AM
Hasbro just not giving a crap and letting the inmates run the asylum at WoTC does not surprise me at all. So many large companies are horribly mismanaged, but coast on the strength of their brand anyway.
As for DnD, the last time I can think of that DnD was under competent management was when Gary Gygax and Don Kayne were running TSR out of Gary's basement in Lake Geneva Wisconsin. It's a testament to the strength of DnD as a brand that it has managed to survive some truly epically bad management over the years. Remember Lorraine Williams?
The real irony of Williams's tenure was that the Buck Rogers IP wasn't a bad one. We probably could've gotten a decent RPG out of it, but the silly bint didn't want to actually playtest anything.
"What? You want to
PLAY GAMES on company time?! Absolutely not! 'Playtesting' my ass! Board games don't NEED to be tested."
Yep Lorraine was a piece of work. Part of me wonders how she managed to run anything with management skills like those. It's a big reason why I believe the conspiracy theory that Mrs Williams actually knew exactly what she was doing and she was just using TSR and the Buck Rogers IP to launder money.
As an IP Buck Rogers isn't
terrible but I still question the timing of the RPG. The Television show had been off the air for nearly a decade by the time the RPG came out. As far as I know, there really wasn't much happening with the Buck Rogers IP in 1988. Literally the only reason the game was to be made was because Mrs. Williams owned the copyright.
Quote from: Torque2100 on October 29, 2020, 08:25:44 AM
"What? You want to PLAY GAMES on company time?! Absolutely not! 'Playtesting' my ass! Board games don't NEED to be tested."
Yep Lorraine was a piece of work. Part of me wonders how she managed to run anything with management skills like those. It's a big reason why I believe the conspiracy theory that Mrs Williams actually knew exactly what she was doing and she was just using TSR and the Buck Rogers IP to launder money.
As an IP Buck Rogers isn't terrible but I still question the timing of the RPG. The Television show had been off the air for nearly a decade by the time the RPG came out. As far as I know, there really wasn't much happening with the Buck Rogers IP in 1988. Literally the only reason the game was to be made was because Mrs. Williams owned the copyright.
Probably. This wasn't the era of 'reboot ALL the things!' that would come along a decade or two later. But I have no objection to someone making money off something they own. Just... try not to burn down the rest of the fucking business while you do it.
Looking at the dates, I wonder if Larry Elmore had seen the writing on the wall when he jumped ship from TSR in '87 to work freelance.
Personally, I wonder if many of the stories about Williams' tenure at TSR have been exaggerated by either fan demonization or sources with an axe to grind. I expect we'd find out that she was someone who was fairly ignorant about the hobby and never bothered to learn much about it, but was trying to make a go of the business and just made some unwise decisions, especially at the end.
Surprised that no one seems to have mentioned the usual cause for stuff like this: bureaucratic turf battles. Almost as likely there's some VP somewhere who figures on becoming some sort of publishing house mogul in Hasbro and wanted to eliminate or take over publishing from a branch of the company he doesn't control.
Petty shit like this is 99 out of 100 times the cause for any irrational decisions in a company.
Quote from: Shasarak on October 28, 2020, 03:48:53 PM
If this was true then you could sue Hasbro for not producing novels and therefore not doing "everything possible to maximise their profits"
You still seem to be missing my point. Sure the novels would generate some revenue. We know the novels sold and would still sell. We don't know how profitable that was. You can't just say, "I'm going to sue you because you're not producing novels that some people would buy" and hope to prevail.
The plaintiff must prove that printing and selling the novels is likely to generate
more profit than anything else Hasbro could do with the money required to maintain the IP and to produce the novels. That's not an easy thing to prove. Especially since the plaintiff isn't likely to have access to the revenue and expenses and other inner workings of Hasbro and its companies.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on October 29, 2020, 10:20:51 AM
Personally, I wonder if many of the stories about Williams' tenure at TSR have been exaggerated by either fan demonization or sources with an axe to grind.
This is most certainly the case since the story I heard was that the writers at TSR refused to playtest anything, as they just assumed they knew what they were doing.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on October 29, 2020, 11:29:04 AM
This is most certainly the case since the story I heard was that the writers at TSR refused to playtest anything, as they just assumed they knew what they were doing.
If the designers of a table top game don't want to play it, that indicates the game isn't good.
Quote from: Chris24601 on October 28, 2020, 10:34:10 AMBig corporations are literally not allowed by government regulations to do what's best for their customers or longevity of their product lines unless those things also make the shareholders more money.
Possible but not so black and white. Shareholders are a class of owner, and the board and CEO are responsible to acting in their best interests. You can do a lot so long as you do not lose their support. The perfect example of this was Apple back before Jobs Part II, when they had trouble keeping track of various projects they were spending money on that didn't have any direct or ultimate goal associated with it that could be traced back to a bottom line.
I can see how the book market would be a rough one. For the most part you are 'in' on the costs of manufacturing and logistics, and you are giving about 50% (possibly more) to distribution. Plus, if you have some titles that aren't selling well, your distributor can 'stock balance,' - they can say 'this shit title A isn't selling, so take it back and send us more title B or give us $$$ credit on what we owe you.' They may also have the option of just sending it all back, depending on the agreement.
Quote from: Bren on October 29, 2020, 11:28:18 AM
Quote from: Shasarak on October 28, 2020, 03:48:53 PM
If this was true then you could sue Hasbro for not producing novels and therefore not doing "everything possible to maximise their profits"
You still seem to be missing my point. Sure the novels would generate some revenue. We know the novels sold and would still sell. We don't know how profitable that was. You can't just say, "I'm going to sue you because you're not producing novels that some people would buy" and hope to prevail.
The plaintiff must prove that printing and selling the novels is likely to generate more profit than anything else Hasbro could do with the money required to maintain the IP and to produce the novels. That's not an easy thing to prove. Especially since the plaintiff isn't likely to have access to the revenue and expenses and other inner workings of Hasbro and its companies.
Indeed. That's the whole idea of opportunity costs. Just because something generates profits semi-consistently, doesn't mean that it generates ENOUGH profits to be worthwhile.
As a more digestible (ie: simplistic) example. Say your company has $1m to invest and three potential projects.
Project A will cost $600k and is expected to generate $750k in revenue.
Project B will cost $350k and is expected to generate $450k in revenue.
Project C will cost $950k and generate $1.1m in revenue.
Now obviously, you're going to do Projects A & B and not do Project C (ending up with $1.25m rather than $1.15m). Project C would be profitable, but you only have so many resources, and it's not profitable enough to be worth forgoing A & C.
If publishing is Project C, you're going to dump it to invest in more profitable ventures, which in the case of D&D stuff, A & B might be plushies and t-shirts. *shrug*
Now of course, without the numbers it's all just speculative. But there are many good business reasons to drop product lines which are still profitable, keeping only the most profitable pieces of them. (As OP's quote stated, the most profitable D&D novels would still be worth publishing by HarperCollins. And arguably, the D&D novels were somewhat cannibalizing each-other as there is a finite desire for D&D licensed novels, and keeping the product line tighter would make those that remain sell better - which does seem to be the business model they chose for 5e rulebooks relative to the plethora of 4e & 3.x splat-books.)
Quote from: Torque2100 on October 29, 2020, 06:51:00 AMAs for DnD, the last time I can think of that DnD was under competent management was when Gary Gygax and Don Kayne were running TSR out of Gary's basement in Lake Geneva Wisconsin. It's a testament to the strength of DnD as a brand that it has managed to survive some truly epically bad management over the years. Remember Lorraine Williams?
Actually according to many I've talked to. Lorraine actually did manage TSR fairly well. But it was all the side problems that undermined it. She respected her workers even if she did not quite grasp some of the product. She trusted in her staff.
Big question is where did things go wrong? The lawsuits are one. Funnelling money into the death sink of CCGs was another. Spellfire actually sis well. The others less so.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 29, 2020, 08:13:12 AM
The real irony of Williams's tenure was that the Buck Rogers IP wasn't a bad one. We probably could've gotten a decent RPG out of it, but the silly bint didn't want to actually playtest anything.
Which one? There were two.
The first was playable and had several expansions. 2 PC games, a board game, and at least 2 books.
The second was designed by her brother who was by all accounts enthusiastic about gaming. From all Ive seen its playable. Fairly basic. But gets the job done. I think it suffered from coming out near the end of TSRs life span and probably a little ire from fans of the first BR RPG.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on October 29, 2020, 10:20:51 AM
Personally, I wonder if many of the stories about Williams' tenure at TSR have been exaggerated by either fan demonization or sources with an axe to grind. I expect we'd find out that she was someone who was fairly ignorant about the hobby and never bothered to learn much about it, but was trying to make a go of the business and just made some unwise decisions, especially at the end.
From what I've been told from the people there. Its a little of column A and a little of column B.
On gaining control she promptly gave herself a nice raise.
She funneled funds from TSR into her own pocket via the Buck Rogers IP of which she pulled royalties from it all and on the side put out a Buck Rogers history book which she got more from on the TSR dime.
I think part of that was she was really proud of the family legacy. But also a shrewd businesswoman.
On the flip side she respected writers and bought up and maintained Amazing Stories magazine for a good while it seems. She also treated the staff well. But also had a stated disdain for gamers. But enough sense to let the staff do their jobs. Would not surprise me if she did not think playtesting was necessary. But that sounds more like certain other companies rather than TSR.
Quote from: KingCheops on October 29, 2020, 10:40:23 AM
Surprised that no one seems to have mentioned the usual cause for stuff like this: bureaucratic turf battles. Almost as likely there's some VP somewhere who figures on becoming some sort of publishing house mogul in Hasbro and wanted to eliminate or take over publishing from a branch of the company he doesn't control.
Petty shit like this is 99 out of 100 times the cause for any irrational decisions in a company.
If the story of Hasbro axing the book branch is true then that could well be. Or just simple ignorance. Never underestimate a companies ability to self sabotage. And would not surprise me at all if some of WOTCs stupid wore off on Hasbro.
Assuming Hasbro did and its not WOTC covering for yet another of their own screwups.
One day, Hasbro is just going to tell WotC that D&D isn't gay enough. And that will be the end of D&D.
I have it on good authority from my highschool class mates that D&D is super gay.
So is there any corroborating evidence or was the quote from the first post just a bunch of speculation?
And no, I am not looking for responses which begin win, "I wouldn't be surprised if..."
Interestingly enough, I just found the following entry in 1992 "Little Macs" - the prize annually given by Richard Berg to "the most egregious blunders, the most inane remarks, and the biggest wastes of time and energy in the industry."
TWO SEASONS TICKETS IN THE BOB UECKER SECTION AT MILWAUKEE COUNTY STADIUM: To the perpetrators of GenCon '92 - TSR - for shuttling every non-TSR activity into corners of The Mecca that not even bloodhounds could locate, for trying to pre-buy and tie up most of the hotel rooms in the area, and for claiming most of the convention floor was sold out when it wasn't. Condescension, Abrasiveness, Supercili-osity (?) and a general Lack of Intelligence are NOT the four cornerstones of Public Relations, folks ... although they do appear to be so for TSR corporate policy.
Quote from: Shawn Driscoll on October 30, 2020, 03:35:46 AM
One day, Hasbro is just going to tell WotC that D&D isn't gay enough. And that will be the end of D&D.
More like one day WOTC will tell Hasbro they arent gay enough and need more black married lesbian pedophiles from the 1930s in their board games like FFG has. Gnay Gnomes was gnot enough!
Quote from: Mistwell on October 30, 2020, 10:44:40 AM
So is there any corroborating evidence or was the quote from the first post just a bunch of speculation?
And no, I am not looking for responses which begin win, "I wouldn't be surprised if..."
Not that I've ever seen. And does not quite mesh with what have heard from writers for WOTC I know. Havent had a chance to ask one I still have contact with.
His last WOTC book was in 2011 seems. Looks like Mel Odoms last book was in 2012. Greenwoods last one seems to be 2013 then nothing till 2016 and then nada. Salvatore seems to have been chugging away up to present day.
2011-12 seems to be the actual cut off point for some. That would coincide with the trailing end of the tighter budget leash Hasbro had placed on WOTC after the screwups of 4e and their ultimatum for 5e to succeed or else.
So by 2012 WOTCs book line was allready gutted looks like so claims of a 2016 axing seems off to me.
Quote from: Omega on October 30, 2020, 03:33:27 PM
So by 2012 WOTCs book line was allready gutted looks like so claims of a 2016 axing seems off to me.
I have a WoTC-published author friend, she was told they were dropping her around end of 2011 as I recall. So yes that fits.
Quote from: Reckall on October 30, 2020, 11:21:17 AM
Interestingly enough, I just found the following entry in 1992 "Little Macs" - the prize annually given by Richard Berg to "the most egregious blunders, the most inane remarks, and the biggest wastes of time and energy in the industry."
TWO SEASONS TICKETS IN THE BOB UECKER SECTION AT MILWAUKEE COUNTY STADIUM: To the perpetrators of GenCon '92 - TSR - for shuttling every non-TSR activity into corners of The Mecca that not even bloodhounds could locate, for trying to pre-buy and tie up most of the hotel rooms in the area, and for claiming most of the convention floor was sold out when it wasn't. Condescension, Abrasiveness, Supercili-osity (?) and a general Lack of Intelligence are NOT the four cornerstones of Public Relations, folks ... although they do appear to be so for TSR corporate policy.
This. TSR was off my Radar after about 1980 or so.
The 90s was a crazy time for Gen-Con with TSR there, not there, other companies doing the same. At times it seemed like a competition between TSR, Games Workshop and White Wolf for who would snub the con this or that year. Weird stuff. Partly Id guess because of the background legal battles between companies too.
I know there was some serious bad blood between R Talsorian and TSR/WOTC for a long time over how Talsorian got screwed over in the Netrunner CCG. GDW didnt have much good to say about TSR for a while, and other publishers. And the next year it would be someone else drawing ire.