# It's Almost the Season for WOTC layoff!



## AnthonyRoberson (Oct 22, 2010)

It's almost the time for WOTC's annual pre-Christmas layoffs. I wonder who will get the axe this year? Methinks that things are probably pretty 'interesting' there these days based on these recent developments:

- The change in direction for 4E marked by the release of Essentials
- The schedule shift and subsequent mad rush to get Gamma World released
- The end of the Star Wars license
- The remarkably light release schedule for the next six months or so.
- The failure to update Character Builder and the transition to 'online tools'


----------



## Dausuul (Oct 22, 2010)

I share the impulse to snark about WotC's lunatic HR practices (on the D&D side, anyway), but this seems in rather poor taste, not to say ghoulish.


----------



## Alaxk Knight of Galt (Oct 22, 2010)

This  is 100% tasteless.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Oct 22, 2010)

Meh, certainly anyone that joined WotC within the past few years joined knowing that their jobs were about as stable [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ce-PQqkIXe0&feature=related]as...[/ame]  If the annual layoff threads have taught me anything, it's that most of the laid off are still happy they worked at WotC for "the experience" of being with the biggest RPG company.  Layoffs still suck, but I'm not going to feel that bad when something happens that was so blatantly obviously coming.

EDIT: Wanted to hyperlink the word "as..." to the video without actually embedding it.  Guess you can't do tha'.


----------



## crazy_cat (Oct 22, 2010)

Alaxk Knight of Galt said:


> This  is 100% tasteless.



Why is this tasteless? As far as I can see:

1. WOTC do traditionally have an annual round of pre Xmas layoffs
2. Everybody who works there must know this (as do we)
3. The factors listed in post 1 may make this year more interesting, or maybe not

This situation not very pleasant for those who lose their jobs - agree 100%; this thread tasteless - not so sure.


----------



## DaveMage (Oct 22, 2010)

Since they restructured earlier in the year to create two separate teams, maybe the "layoffs" from the D&D-RPG have already taken place (as it's a leaner team now, IIRC).

Besides, I think they were hiring for one of the teams a short while ago.

Maybe they will be spared this year....


----------



## Dausuul (Oct 22, 2010)

crazy_cat said:


> Why is this tasteless? As far as I can see:
> 
> 1. WOTC do traditionally have an annual round of pre Xmas layoffs
> 2. Everybody who works there must know this (as do we)
> ...




It's tasteless because it's speculating about real people, many of whom read these forums, losing their livelihoods in the midst of the worst economic downturn in decades. "Who will get the axe this year?" is making light of that very real and personal suffering.

[Edited to remove incendiary and overly hostile statement.]


----------



## Umbran (Oct 22, 2010)

*Folks,

It has been noted that some of the worst conflict and bad blood we get on these forums recently comes not from discussing games, but from discussing the business of games.  The moderation staff thinks this trend runs rather counter to what the site stands for, so we aren't likely to put up with much nastiness in here.

Take that as a warning - play nice in this thread, please.

Thanks for your time and attention.*


----------



## BriarMonkey (Oct 22, 2010)

Only time will tell.  If the Essentials line, and 4E in general, is doing as well as we are led to believe, then may haps this year the cycle will be broken.  After all, we are heading into the holidaze and that may help with how they have aimed to market the Red Box and accompaniments.

  But too, with the economy where it is, it really is a gamble.


----------



## TerraDave (Oct 22, 2010)

It _could_ be tasteless, but it is a regular cycle that has went on for years and years. 

Layoffs that may have been related to the big shift in strategy, and there was one, are already over with. And a lot of people involved in 08 D&D have already been let go. 

Essentials may matter now, in the sense that strong sales may help with staff retention. Or vice-versa. 

(Also, James Wyatt would seem to be in the most danger of anyone we have heard of).


----------



## Umbran (Oct 22, 2010)

TerraDave said:


> It _could_ be tasteless, but it is a regular cycle that has went on for years and years.




It being a pattern does not prevent discussion of it from being tasteless.  That burden lies upon us, not on historical facts.

We are talking about people who might lose their jobs, in tough economic times, just before the holidays. Whether or not they can expect it coming does not magically make it a fun part of the season for them, or something.  

This doesn't mean it cannot be discussed, but a certain amount of decorum and respect for those who may be affected is called for.  The games are there for our amusement - the lives of the employees are not.


----------



## Stormonu (Oct 22, 2010)

I was reading over the 20th anniversary stuff not long ago, and it looks like this "tradition" started back in '83.  I would have figured at least it would have stopped when they came under WotC...has there been any years since 1999 that the D&D side of WotC hasn't done lay-offs?


----------



## Tiitha (Oct 23, 2010)

It's not very nice to talk about peoples' careers ending from layoffs, even if it will happen. As someone who enjoys the elements of game design, art, and storytelling, I can understand how much it could suck to lose a job like that.


----------



## FireLance (Oct 23, 2010)

We can only hope that Mike Mearls will ruin the WotC layoff.


----------



## nedjer (Oct 23, 2010)

It would be fairly stunningly dumb to sack from the current team when the first real results from the products they've developed and just released won't be in until after Christmas.

Particularly when they've been making the game more accessible. What the bosses gonna do, sack these dudes and go back to watching their market share get eaten by Pathfinder, videogames . . .

So, Mr. Wolf At The Door - let's not have any short term nonsense this year


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Oct 23, 2010)

I've continually been astounded at WotC's annual "Christmas bonuses" and think a thread like this actually could be a great idea.

It lets WotC know that the fans are aware of (and gives us an opportunity to decry) their HR policy of annual layoffs in general, especially at Christmas.


I certainly hope this thread is poking fun at the abominable way the company treats its employees/talent rather than at the individuals themselves.

I would love to see WotC break their trend of layoffs this year.


----------



## lrsach01 (Oct 23, 2010)

On the other hand, maybe this sort of discussion will help a WotC employee to decide to take a leap.... to step out on their own or take a position with another company. Or... even better... maybe a frank and open discussion of these "bonuses" will shame WotC into changing their practices. And, frankly, an employee may THINK their job is secure but independent speculation may open their eyes. This sort of discussion is no different from SportsCenter speculating on which manager/player is going to be let go next.


----------



## Dausuul (Oct 23, 2010)

Aberzanzorax said:


> I've continually been astounded at WotC's annual "Christmas bonuses" and think a thread like this actually could be a great idea.
> 
> It lets WotC know that the fans are aware of (and gives us an opportunity to decry) their HR policy of annual layoffs in general, especially at Christmas.
> 
> ...




Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure the people responsible for the yearly layoff cycle don't read this forum. The people who do read this forum are the ones on the receiving end.


----------



## jaerdaph (Oct 23, 2010)

Add me to the list of Pathfinder fans who think discussing who might get laid off at WotC is in very poor taste.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Oct 23, 2010)

Aberzanzorax said:


> I've continually been astounded at WotC's annual "Christmas bonuses" and think a thread like this actually could be a great idea.
> 
> It lets WotC know that the fans are aware of (and gives us an opportunity to decry) their HR policy of annual layoffs in general, especially at Christmas.
> 
> ...




Perhaps someone could print out this thread and send it to WotC in hardcopy? This could increase awareness. How about coloring the most critical passages with a magic marker?


----------



## Jack99 (Oct 23, 2010)

I am astounded that the mods let this stay open. It's just poor taste. It's fine to discuss the practice itself, but:



> I wonder who will get the axe this year?




this doesn't belong on ENworld, IM*N*SHO.


----------



## Dire Bare (Oct 23, 2010)

Yup.  Poor taste.


----------



## Woas (Oct 23, 2010)

What's the difference about talking about it now before it may or may not happen. Or like every other previous time when it happened and we all gather round like gitty school girls gossiping about it?


----------



## Umbran (Oct 23, 2010)

Woas said:


> What's the difference about talking about it now before it may or may not happen. Or like every other previous time when it happened and we all gather round like gitty school girls gossiping about it?




The only basic difference is that if WotC wants to take the vocal minority's sensibilities into account, they can do so if we speak beforehand.  Not so much after the fact.

My general understanding is that yearly layoffs may or may not be sound management - it really depends on the specifics of your work.  

Having yearly layoffs before the holidays is pretty sad stuff.  Really, if you have to do a yearly round of layoffs, move your fiscal year so you can balance the books when it isn't so demoralizing.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Oct 23, 2010)

Woas said:


> What's the difference about talking about it now before it may or may not happen. Or like every other previous time when it happened and we all gather round like gitty school girls gossiping about it?




It's "talk about an accident you saw" vs. "sit beside the street with popcorn and a garden chair waiting for the accident to happen."


----------



## Kaiyanwang (Oct 23, 2010)

Keefe the Thief said:


> It's "talk about an accident you saw" vs. "sit beside the street with popcorn and a garden chair waiting for the accident to happen."




Exactly.


----------



## Woas (Oct 23, 2010)

Keefe the Thief said:


> It's "talk about an accident you saw" vs. "sit beside the street with popcorn and a garden chair waiting for the accident to happen."




I dunno... seems the same to me.

That's why NASCAR and Hockey are so popular, right?


----------



## Kralin Thornberry (Oct 23, 2010)

Jack99 said:


> I am astounded that the mods let this stay open. It's just poor taste. It's fine to discuss the practice itself, but:
> 
> 
> 
> this doesn't belong on ENworld, IM*N*SHO.




Agreed.


----------



## Jupp (Oct 23, 2010)

Dear OP, how would you feel if we would openly discuss your current employment and the probable chance that you get a kick in the rear end within the next few weeks? Your thread is tasteless, non-constructive and insulting to those that work at the company in question.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Oct 24, 2010)

I wonder if Morrus is going to demote one of the Mods again this year?


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Oct 24, 2010)

Alright, reflecting on what i said earlier...

When I look for a career, I'm willing ot take a lower paying or otherwise less attractive offer if it's with someone that is less likely to lay my ass off sometime down the line, because I like stability in my life and really hate interviewing for new work.  To me, the security is worth other tradeoffs.  For others, the view is to take as much money and valuable experience as you can get and be in a good position to find new work when the gravy train ends.

I'm not saying we shouldn't feel bad for these people, layoffs still suck.  No one deserves to be layed off.  But, *they chose to work there*.  If someone else passed on the "opportunity of a lifetime" to get in a few years at WotC and went on to land another lower profile and lower paying gaming job that kept them employed for many years, do we mourn them for what they missed out on?


----------



## Truth Seeker (Oct 24, 2010)

Wotc Layoffs?

Yesterday news...


----------



## Paul_Klein (Oct 24, 2010)

To the OP - learn some tact.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Oct 24, 2010)

Woas said:


> I dunno... seems the same to me.
> 
> That's why NASCAR and Hockey are so popular, right?




If you cannot see the difference... 

no, i better leave this thread.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Oct 24, 2010)

I'm not sure if this thread is more disgusting or if it's more of a disgrace.  Either way, close it.


----------



## Mr. Wilson (Oct 24, 2010)

I'm not so much oppossed to having the discussion, as I am the way it was presented in this thread.


----------



## nedjer (Oct 24, 2010)

A thread that maybe highlights what employees are doing right, or possibly offers a useful way of looking at or presenting an employment protecting argument, seems of more practical use than wailing and lamentations, (i.e. rubbernecking), after the event.

That may or may not have been the OPs original intention, but would it be so bad to talk up WoTC for what the do right along with the regular pops at what they've done 'wrong'.


----------



## the Jester (Oct 24, 2010)

While I agree that this thread is tasteless, the clamoring calls to close the thread are kind of ridiculous.

Come on- 'tasteless' is pretty far from 'offensive' (even though the tastelessness itself may offend!), and the point that, assuming the annual round of layoffs comes, we'd be having the discussion in a couple of months is pretty telling.

If you object to this thread so much, _don't post in it_ and it will slip off the front page quickly and die a natural death. But these "omg i m so offennded" posts are just silly. It's easy enough just to stay out.


----------



## Jhaelen (Oct 24, 2010)

Jack99 said:


> I am astounded that the mods let this stay open. It's just poor taste.



Ditto.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Oct 24, 2010)

the Jester said:


> While I agree that this thread is tasteless, the clamoring calls to close the thread are kind of ridiculous.
> 
> Come on- 'tasteless' is pretty far from 'offensive' (even though the tastelessness itself may offend!), and the point that, assuming the annual round of layoffs comes, we'd be having the discussion in a couple of months is pretty telling.
> 
> If you object to this thread so much, _don't post in it_ and it will slip off the front page quickly and die a natural death. But these "omg i m so offennded" posts are just silly. It's easy enough just to stay out.




QFT, it's getting really annoying and in any other thread would have been declared a threadjack by now.


----------



## Dedekind (Oct 24, 2010)

The general point I think most of us agree on is that the _historical_ layoffs were a crappy way to treat what seemed to be talented employees. As a community, we want to reiterate our views on the matter in close proximity to the anniversary of the last time it happened. And perhaps recall how successful many of these former employees went on to be in their own right. 

Speculation by outsiders, in this case, is in poor taste.


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 24, 2010)

WotC isn't having layoffs this year. They're trying something new...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgPEhrB7ebc"]YouTube - Magic: The Gathering: Bob from Accounting[/ame]


----------



## Umbran (Oct 24, 2010)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> I'm not saying we shouldn't feel bad for these people, layoffs still suck.  No one deserves to be layed off.  But, *they chose to work there*.




The people who have been looking for permanent work for 12 months and more in the current economy would beg to differ with you.

That argument works well in good times, when a person can pretty much pick where they work.  But the US unemployment rate is still upwards of 9%.  Sometimes, you take the job you can get, and don't have the luxury of being picky about security.




ProfessorCirno said:


> I'm not sure if this thread is more disgusting or if it's more of a disgrace.  Either way, close it.




Every single post saying that this thread should be closed is bumping the thread, probably increasing its visibility and longevity.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Oct 24, 2010)

Umbran said:


> The people who have been looking for permanent work for 12 months and more in the current economy would beg to differ with you.
> 
> That argument works well in good times, when a person can pretty much pick where they work.  But the US unemployment rate is still upwards of 9%.  Sometimes, you take the job you can get, and don't have the luxury of being picky about security.




Tell me about it.  Since I graduated 3 years ago, I've been unemployed for 2/3 of that time, and the only jobs I've had have been unskilled temp jobs for low pay and no benefits with absolutely no relevance to my degree.  I've totally done the desperation job thing.

Perhaps I was wrong, but I was under the assumption that working for the biggest games company was a sort of cream of the crop job.  That if you could get a job doing anything related to game design with WotC, then you could probably land a job at other places, too.  That such a job with WotC would not be a "desperation job."  If my assumption was wrong, and scores of WotC employees would jump ship in a hot second if the equivalent job opened up at a "better" company, then I apologize.


----------



## Campbell (Oct 25, 2010)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> Tell me about it.  Since I graduated 3 years ago, I've been unemployed for 2/3 of that time, and the only jobs I've had have been unskilled temp jobs for low pay and no benefits with absolutely no relevance to my degree.  I've totally done the desperation job thing.
> 
> Perhaps I was wrong, but I was under the assumption that working for the biggest games company was a sort of cream of the crop job.  That if you could get a job doing anything related to game design with WotC, then you could probably land a job at other places, too.  That such a job with WotC would not be a "desperation job."  If my assumption was wrong, and scores of WotC employees would jump ship in a hot second if the equivalent job opened up at a "better" company, then I apologize.




Here's the thing - there's really no such thing as a stable full time job in hobby game design. WotC is one of the few producers of role playing games that even offers full time jobs with benefits. Outside of WotC, Paizo, and possibly White Wolf and Fantasy Flight game companies operate off skeleton crews with maybe up to 5 full time employees at most.


----------



## Azgulor (Oct 25, 2010)

Campbell said:


> Here's the thing - there's really no such thing as a stable full time job in hobby game design. WotC is one of the few producers of role playing games that even offers full time jobs with benefits. Outside of WotC, Paizo, and possibly White Wolf and Fantasy Flight game companies operate off skeleton crews with maybe up to 5 full time employees at most.




Here's another thing.  Business plans are an intentional strategy that a company attempts to execute.

While everything you said is correct, it's also pretty well established that this is a recurring event within WotC and by all appearances part of their business plan.

If WotC, as part of the interview process, lays the groundwork and says "most jobs have a duration of X years" you can't say the employees weren't warned.  However, unless you're dealing with contract work with a defined term, I've certainly never heard of such a thing occurring.

It may be a fiscally sound strategy by WotC to embark upon these layoffs at regular intervals.  It may also be a very shortsighted strategy, i.e. the path of least resistance.  I can only speculate.  

I have, however, worked in a corporate culture that evolved into a bi-annual layoff cycle.  It was incredibly demoralizing, even for those of us who were having success at the company.  It became its own form of survivor's guilt and it sucked.  However, I'm sure it paled in comparison to those who lost their jobs.  Ultimately, I was fortunate enough to find a better job & leave on my terms rather than the company's.

So speculation aside, it goes without saying that for those getting laid off -- it sucks.  It may ultimately work out for the better for those people in the long run & it is my sincere hope that it does.

In any event, I hope those who pull this particular trigger within WotC pull their heads out of the backsides and break the trend this year.  In the event that they do not, those affected have my sincerest sympathies & well wishes for better & brighter future endeavors.


----------



## Campbell (Oct 25, 2010)

Azgulor said:


> Here's another thing.  Business plans are an intentional strategy that a company attempts to execute.
> 
> While everything you said is correct, it's also pretty well established that this is a recurring event within WotC and by all appearances part of their business plan.
> 
> ...




I agree with pretty much everything you just said. I was responding to the sentiment that WotC employees should have found a more stable job in the first place.


----------



## Azgulor (Oct 25, 2010)

Campbell said:


> I agree with pretty much everything you just said. I was responding to the sentiment that WotC employees should have found a more stable job in the first place.




Can't really argue with that.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Oct 25, 2010)

Me neither, Campbell made a good argument.


----------



## Banshee16 (Oct 25, 2010)

Aberzanzorax said:


> It lets WotC know that the fans are aware of (and gives us an opportunity to decry) their HR policy of annual layoffs in general, especially at Christmas.




I don't think WotC cares what the fans think of the way the business is run, as long as they continue to purchase product.  At the end of the day, they're trying to run a business, and, as long as bad press doesn't interfere with their ability to sell product (in their eyes), it probably won't matter.  Plus, the small percentage of fans who are aware of layoffs, and the small percentage of *those* fans who then post about the layoffs is probably not significant enough to affect the bottom line.

Banshee


----------



## frankthedm (Oct 25, 2010)

In this season of making holiday purchases, I think this thread can be a useful reminder of WOTCs practices.


----------



## TerraDave (Oct 25, 2010)

As the only one to name a name...this is really that tasteless?

I guess I view them as professionals in a volatile industry who probably know what they are in for. Its an industry I follow and have an interest in. Thats it.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 25, 2010)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> Perhaps I was wrong, but I was under the assumption that working for the biggest games company was a sort of cream of the crop job.  That if you could get a job doing anything related to game design with WotC, then you could probably land a job at other places, too.




As I said, in good economic times, you'd be correct.  In the current climate, though, I don't think anyone's really secure in their ability to find new work should they get layed off.  That so many, cream of the crop or no, should have to be at it for a year or more to find a new permanent position suggests quite the opposite.

Also, note that only a few people actually do game design - there's lot s of other WotC employees to consider.  And, even for the designers - it isn't like companies seeking game design are a dime a dozen to begin with, much less ones looking to increase their staff.

Losing a job now would probably not be as bad as losing it in the past two years, but I don't think it'd be fun, or a cakewalk to a new position.


----------



## Olaf the Stout (Oct 25, 2010)

Add me to the chorus of people that think this thread is incredibly tasteless.  People's livelihoods should not be casually debated like this.

Olaf the Stout


----------



## OchreJelly (Oct 26, 2010)

I won’t focus on playing “vegas odds” on an individuals’ livelihood.  I won’t beleaguer the point since many others have said what I feel about that.

However, in an effort to contribute to the thread in a less offensive manner I’ll approach it like this:

Is this sort of behavior actually unique to WoTC or game design in general?  I hear all the time about video game developers just getting a game out the door and then firing off half the staff, or worse the studio gets shut down.  It just seems to me this is more indicative of an industry that focuses on big long-term projects.  Once those projects are done, be it a video game or a new rpg edition, some creative staff is often cut.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 26, 2010)

OchreJelly said:


> Is this sort of behavior actually unique to WoTC or game design in general?




I don't believe it is unique to any industry.  I have seen it's like elsewhere.

If it were related to the life of projects, you would see the layoffs at random times of the year, as the projects finished.  That it happens the same time in several years suggests it is a policy tied to the fiscal year, and the yearly budgeting process, rather than specific projects.


----------



## ggroy (Oct 26, 2010)

Umbran said:


> I don't believe it is unique to any industry.  I have seen it's like elsewhere.
> 
> If it were related to the life of projects, you would see the layoffs at random times of the year, as the projects finished.  That it happens the same time in several years suggests it is a policy tied to the fiscal year, and the yearly budgeting process, rather than specific projects.




The December annual layoffs just happens to coincide with the end of Hasbro's fiscal year.  Hasbro's fiscal year ends around the end of December.  (For this fiscal year, it ends on December 27, 2010).

HAS Key Statistics | Hasbro, Inc. Common Stock Stock - Yahoo! Finance


----------



## TheYeti1775 (Oct 26, 2010)

Talking about the business policy basing it off past history - not tasteless.
Laying odds on specific employees - tasteless.

That pretty much sums it up.

Really though, it's speculation that has merit.  Past history has shown us that WotC does this quite regularly in their business plan.
I live in a 'right to work' state.  They could literally come up to my desk right now and tell me I'm done.  That is it.
No hard feelings, I've been sitting at the same desk for 4+ years now.
I move on find another job.
The thing is I've prepared myself for the day it happens.
That is what any one working a job where they are not the boss of themself should be doing/or have done.

In an industry as violiatile as the RPG industry (especially in WotC's history) each of the employees should be prepared for it.

The OP makes good points about the product line focus and changes that have happened recently.  It has direct bearing on the bottom line at WotC.  If some accountant at WotC or Hasbro goes we can raise our stock value by fifty cents by laying off Bob the Game Designer whose line has ended, that is what they will do.  Don't kid ourselves otherwise.
Remember our old arguement that Gamers in general don't make good Store Owners for a FLGS.  The same holds true as putting Gamers in Charge of companies.

It's very rare that someone doesn't know it's coming around.  I've goine through two such layoffs.  Each time I knew ahead of time they were possible and prepared myself accordingly.

If you disagree with a company's practice or have a complaint about their product, tell them.  If you give no feed back, how in the world do you expect a company to improve to your liking?
And I'm not talking firing off a angry email either.
Type or write up a real letter (nearly a lost art nowadays).
Many companies still pay attention to those.  A person hand writing something out has shown a vested interest in it whereas we could all fire off a million emails in the same about of time.


----------



## Aristotle (Oct 27, 2010)

I think responsible discussion of the trend is ok. I've been very critical of the WotC layoffs in the past, but I get that some careers are more competitive, less stable, or otherwise different than I might like, but if it's the career you want: you deal with it.

If you are a game writer/designer working on Dungeons & Dragons is a dream come true, but not the culmination of your career as it might be in others. In many cases I think it is a springboard. You work hard, you put your biggest ideas on the table, and you build up name recognition.

A lot of big names have been cut in the annual layoffs, and some of them have gone on to lend their celebrity status within the community to other projects, or they go on to produce their own dream products.

I hate the layoffs... but I hate them most for the people in the less visible roles.


----------



## Ourph (Oct 27, 2010)

AnthonyRoberson said:


> Methinks that things are probably pretty 'interesting' there these days based on these recent developments:



Given that the layoffs have happened regularly in the past, regardless of the many year-to-year variables (good vs. bad economy, late vs. early lifecycle of an edition, heavy vs. light release schedule, etc.), I don't know that these developments alter the picture much. The layoffs aren't a special case that happens only when D&D is "in trouble", they happen every year like clockwork (and they always suck).


----------



## nedjer (Oct 27, 2010)

Ourph said:


> Given that the layoffs have happened regularly in the past, regardless of the many year-to-year variables (good vs. bad economy, late vs. early lifecycle of an edition, heavy vs. light release schedule, etc.), I don't know that these developments alter the picture much. The layoffs aren't a special case that happens only when D&D is "in trouble", they happen every year like clockwork (and they always suck).




An inflexible regime of bleeding out talent as a notional motivational technique - just says so much about the childhood of anyone coming up with such a policy


----------



## LordObsidian (Oct 28, 2010)

Now wait a minute...

I know it's all well and good to poke fun at Wotc, but the reason why they wait until now to lay off people is very likely connected to the fact that their fiscal year ends in a little more than two months and they have to give people 60 days notice in order to lay them off.

In other words, this time of year is very likely as late as they can possibly go and keep the people upstairs from bugging them.

I mean, it's not like Wizards enjoys laying off people and only do it this time of year to increase dramatic tension. Sheesh.


----------



## Alan Shutko (Oct 28, 2010)

They probably don't need to give 60 days notice.  The WARN act only kicks in if they lay off 50 or more people and if that constitutes 33% of the people at a single site.  

I agree that the timing is surely due to the fiscal year.  My company has done the exact same thing for the exact same reason.  I still think it's very unfortunate and likely to add stress to an already stressful time of year.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Oct 28, 2010)

LordObsidian said:


> Now wait a minute...
> 
> I know it's all well and good to poke fun at Wotc, but the reason why they wait until now to lay off people is very likely connected to the fact that their fiscal year ends in a little more than two months and they have to give people 60 days notice in order to lay them off.
> 
> ...




Because they cannot define the boundaries of their own fiscal year?

Sheesh.


----------



## Mark CMG (Oct 28, 2010)

IMO, it's a despicable business practice that has annual layoffs as part of the business plan.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 28, 2010)

nedjer said:


> An inflexible regime of bleeding out talent as a notional motivational technique...




Nedjer, do you have some actual evidence that it is intended as a motivational technique?  Have you seen an internal WotC upper-management memo that says, "The whippings will continue until morale improves," or something of the sort?

No?


----------



## Umbran (Oct 28, 2010)

Aberzanzorax said:


> Because they cannot define the boundaries of their own fiscal year?




Thinking about it for a moment, no, maybe they cannot.  It may be that WotC's fiscal year is defined by Hasbro's.


----------



## TheYeti1775 (Oct 28, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Thinking about it for a moment, no, maybe they cannot.  It may be that WotC's fiscal year is defined by Hasbro's.




That would be a correct assumption in my experience.
Many parent companies dictate the FY's of the child companies as to spread the work out on the parent company.  It also has the effect of keeping the profit/costs spread through out the year.

-----------
Yeah a perfect world would have no need for annual layoffs but again it is a practice that happens.
I can't begrudge them that and expect them to stay in business.  
Because you want to know the alternative.
Not hire the person in the first place.
Which would you rather have, no job or one that each year has a risk of layoffs.
I'm quite sure that many of us would jump at the chance to work at WotC molding our beloved game.  But each of us would weigh the fact of continued work versus it prior to jumping on board.


----------



## OnlineDM (Oct 28, 2010)

TheYeti1775 said:


> Yeah a perfect world would have no need for annual layoffs but again it is a practice that happens.
> I can't begrudge them that and expect them to stay in business.
> Because you want to know the alternative.
> Not hire the person in the first place.




This is dead on.  I work for a large corporation, and in a recent business update meeting the CEO flat-out said that, having gone through rounds of layoffs in the past he wants to avoid them in the future.  In order to do that, he specifically said that he wants to make it difficult to add staff.

I go back and forth on this, but I ultimately feel okay about my company's approach.  If you only hire people that you really NEED, then you're less likely to lay a bunch of people off when belts have to be tightened since you won't have a lot of excess staff.  

It sucks for people who are currently looking for jobs, of course, but I think it's an okay strategy (for both companies and workers) in the long run.


----------



## Mark CMG (Oct 28, 2010)

TheYeti1775 said:


> Yeah a perfect world would have no need for annual layoffs but again it is a practice that happens.
> I can't begrudge them that and expect them to stay in business.
> Because you want to know the alternative.
> Not hire the person in the first place.
> Which would you rather have, no job or one that each year has a risk of layoffs.





Reducio ad adsurdum only works if the two extremes you outline are the only options, and suggests that there is no middle ground wherein a less extreme bottomline includes the retention of employees.  When layoffs are built into a business plan, it is no longer a matter of risk but rather as an inevitability.  I reject your premise, conclusions, and sentiments as highly _begrudgable_.


----------



## avin (Oct 28, 2010)

Judging by the diminished DDI articles and delays on CB and MB if they lay off heavily this year they better refund all subscriptions...


----------



## Dausuul (Oct 28, 2010)

TheYeti1775 said:


> Yeah a perfect world would have no need for annual layoffs but again it is a practice that happens.
> I can't begrudge them that and expect them to stay in business.
> Because you want to know the alternative.
> Not hire the person in the first place.




The alternative is "Plan ahead and only hire people on a long-term basis when you really think you need someone long-term." If you don't think you'll need somebody a year from now, hire that person as a temp or on a freelance basis.

Layoffs* are a very destructive thing to do to a business. They disrupt day-to-day operations, severely damage employee morale, and result in loss of institutional knowledge.

Does that mean no company should ever lay anyone off? No... but it means that layoffs should be undertaken only as an emergency measure, in dire fiscal straits. If a company is facing dire fiscal straits year after year, then either the industry is dying around it or something is badly broken at the executive level. And if the industry is dying, there shouldn't be any new hires to replace the laid-off people.

[size=-2]*As opposed to firing, which is a quite different thing. Layoffs are when you take people who are doing their jobs well and send them packing to improve the company's short-term bottom line. Firing is when you get rid of people who suck.[/size]


----------



## billd91 (Oct 28, 2010)

Mark CMG said:


> IMO, it's a despicable business practice that has annual layoffs as part of the business plan.




I'd make one caveat for seasonal-type of work. But then, the initial expectation is that the work is, in fact, seasonal. If WotC changed practices to specifically hire for projects and project support with the expectation that they'd be trimming once the project was winding down, I'd respect them a lot more. But since various blog posts and messages from former WotC employees makes it clear that's not the case and that the times approaching layoffs were very stressful, I feel my low opinion of WotC's practices in this regard are justified.


----------



## TheYeti1775 (Oct 28, 2010)

Mark CMG said:


> Reducio ad adsurdum only works if the two extremes you outline are the only options, and suggests that there is no middle ground wherein a less extreme bottomline includes the retention of employees.  When layoffs are built into a business plan, it is no longer a matter of risk but rather as an inevitability.  I reject your premise, conclusions, and sentiments as highly _begrudgable_.




Your right there is a few other options.
Contractors.  Simple contract, 9 months.  No layoff needed.  Contactor only works for 9 months.  As it's a contact position, no need to have unemployment/health benefits, etc.  Heck if it's a complete 1099, the company just has it as an expense no payroll taxes to process either.  That is all left on the individual.
At least in the case of present business policy the employee would be eligible for benefits, where as on the contract side of the house they wouldn't.  Trust me on that one, been there done that. 

You also have the option of pay cuts.  Are you willing to take a pay cut to keep Bob the Game Designer employed?  Yeah didn't think so.  I'd have you working for pennies on the dollar in a few years if that became the practice.

Lets see other options:
Raise the prices of the products.
Tom, Dick, & Harry won't mind us raising DDI to by $2/month to keep Bob the Game Designer employed.
Jane, Mary, & Sally won't mind the book price going up 10% to keep Bob the Game Designer employed either.

It's a business policy just the same as a Game Store offering floor space to paying gamers to play their games.

Your running CMG, if you had to choose Bob the Game Designer's job or raising your prices what would you do?  What if Bob's salary is what stands between you being in the Red and being in the Black? 
Sorry business isn't a place for personal feelings.  As much as you would hate to admit it yourself, you would be starting a conversation much like this "Sorry to have to do this Bob".

Gone are the days when someone would literally work for the same place for 30 plus years and the gold watch retirement.
In a 100+ employee company, I'm 5th in seniority outside the CEO and VP side, and I've only been here 4 years.  That's the way companies work nowadays.
I've been on both sides of the desk that "Bob" would be at during this time.
Neither is a comfortable spot for either party.
But tough decisions have to be made, and if the company wants to stay in business they have to make sound ones even if they aren't popular.
The business model of regular layoff's sounds like an evil thing.  But you have to remember this is/has been a regular thing at WotC, even at TSR prior to them.

Example:
The decision is no worse than me hiring a caretakeer 9 months out of the year to watch a cabin I use 3 months of the year.  I don't need him those three months, should I pay him for work he isn't doing?  What if in that three months I find someone better and hire them instead and this caretakeer is a master carpenter as well.  In that next 9 months he adds me on a beautiful deck.  I don't need him that 3 months, I look around again.  This time a caretakeer and a plumber.  He installs the hottub on the awesome deck caretakeer number two made for me.

Now change Caretakeer to Game Designer; change cabin to DnD; change porch to 4E; change hottub to Darksun.  See where I'm going with this.
The policy works in this industry at WotC's level.  Smaller companies no it doesn't work, because honestly WotC is the epitome of our industry.  That's why we refer to them as the 800lbs gorilla.


----------



## Henry (Oct 28, 2010)

TheYeti1775 said:


> You also have the option of pay cuts.  Are you willing to take a pay cut to keep Bob the Game Designer employed?  Yeah didn't think so.  I'd have you working for pennies on the dollar in a few years if that became the practice.




Seen it, and would do it if I were offered, especially if I had a number of friends at the place where I worked. Who wants to be the bastard who says, _"Sorry, Joe, you can feed your kids elsewhere this year just before Christmastime, me, I'm not taking a cut."_ You wouldn't get to "pennies on the dollar," though -- that's a bit hyperbolic. It's a situation that will correct itself, when you get to the point where the majority of workers will say, "I can't go through a pay cut two/three/four times in a row. Usually, one year without a raise + a cut is enough for most people, and I've known some people to leave voluntarily to "lower the odds" of people being forced into the choice.


----------



## Dausuul (Oct 28, 2010)

TheYeti1775 said:


> Your right there is a few other options.
> Contractors.  Simple contract, 9 months.  No layoff needed.  Contactor only works for 9 months.  As it's a contact position, no need to have unemployment/health benefits, etc.  Heck if it's a complete 1099, the company just has it as an expense no payroll taxes to process either.  That is all left on the individual.




Are we supposed to take it that annual layoffs are _preferable_ to this?

There's nothing wrong with contract and freelance work. RPG companies, including Wizards, hire freelancers all the time. It's the logical solution when you have a short-term project requiring extra hands, and WotC is in an excellent position for it.

If you hire someone as a full-time employee, you should do so with the expectation of keeping that person around for a while. That isn't sentimentality, it's good business. Firing and hiring is _expensive_, both directly (severance pay, the application and interview process, associated paperwork) and indirectly (loss of institutional knowledge, disruption of work schedules, hit to employee morale). It's idiotic to incur those expenses if you could avoid them by planning ahead a bit.

The only good reasons to engage in layoffs are if a) you're in a desperate fiscal position and literally cannot meet your short-term expenses any other way, or b) you have no realistic prospects for growth and need to reduce headcount permanently. The first case might happen once in a blue moon due to circumstances outside your control, but it's not a situation that any competently run company should find itself in on a yearly basis. The second case implies that you aren't going to be hiring anyone new, which is clearly not the case for WotC.


----------



## TheYeti1775 (Oct 28, 2010)

Henry said:


> Seen it, and would do it if I were offered, especially if I had a number of friends at the place where I worked. Who wants to be the bastard who says, _"Sorry, Joe, you can feed your kids elsewhere this year just before Christmastime, me, I'm not taking a cut."_ You wouldn't get to "pennies on the dollar," though -- that's a bit hyperbolic. It's a situation that will correct itself, when you get to the point where the majority of workers will say, "I can't go through a pay cut two/three/four times in a row. Usually, one year without a raise + a cut is enough for most people, and I've known some people to leave voluntarily to "lower the odds" of people being forced into the choice.



Yeah it's bit hyperbolic, but you get where I'm going with it.



Dausuul said:


> Are we supposed to take it that annual layoffs are _preferable_ to this?



Actually on a Employee side, yes.  It's more beneficial benefit's wise.
Company side it's a maybe situation.
There are some projects that would be longer or much shorter than a normal contract length.  Also with contracts you don't have the flexiblity in assigning new things to the individual.  My job for example as a contractor, I'm tasked per the contract to Project A.  Guess what if you want me on Project B, its redo the contract time or there is a clause about $$ for additional work.



Dausuul said:


> There's nothing wrong with contract and freelance work. RPG companies, including Wizards, hire freelancers all the time. It's the logical solution when you have a short-term project requiring extra hands, and WotC is in an enviable position for it--because of the very nature of RPGs, the fanbase is loaded with smart, creative people who would jump at the chance to work for WotC in any capacity.



Yup definitely puts them in the catbird's seat.
That is why they also get away with the annual layoff.  Again, the advantage of being the 800lbs gorilla.



Dausuul said:


> If you hire someone as a full-time employee, you should do so with the expectation of keeping that person around for a while. That isn't sentimentality, it's good business. Firing and hiring is _expensive_, both directly (severance pay, the application and interview process, associated paperwork) and indirectly (loss of institutional knowledge, disruption of work schedules, hit to employee morale). It's idiotic to incur those expenses if you could avoid them by planning ahead a bit.



Actually you neglect the tax incentives for 'creating work'.  Many of the tax benefits at a local level as well dictate hiring 'full-time employees'.



Dausuul said:


> The only good reasons to engage in layoffs are if a) you're in a desperate fiscal position and literally cannot meet your short-term expenses any other way, or b) you have no realistic prospects for growth and need to reduce headcount permanently. The first case is not a situation that any competently run company should find itself in on a yearly basis. The second case implies that you aren't going to be hiring anyone new, which is clearly not the case for WotC.



Would have to beg to differ for being the only good reasons.
Case in point, the big three auto manufactures used to use layoffs in the event of factory retoolings and what not.
By using the layoff, and the fact the retooling was taking 6+ weeks it made their 'former employees' eligibile for all their unemployment benefits.  Had they simply said a work furlough, the employees wouldn't have been eligible for any benefits.  As long as it took more than 6 weeks than the employees remained eligible and could be 'rehired' back to the line again.  Though this has been changing in the last 20 years.

We as customers don't know everything that happens at WotC.
So we can only speculate why they do it.
Than shake our fingers at them and ask why knowing they won't answer when they do it again.


----------



## Herschel (Oct 28, 2010)

Call me when WotC moves their HQ to the Caymans.


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Oct 28, 2010)

I had an aunt that worked for a department store for several years. Every year they did layoffs of their highest paid people. SHe said everyone knew it was coming and you just dealt with that reality. When those that were hired a year before you were, you polished your resume and left when you found any other job, even if it paid less. You knew it wasn't a reflection of your job performance or your worth as a person, it was just the reality of working for that crummy company. 

With as heavily ingrained as yearly layoffs are at WotC, I'm willing to bet the employees there have a similar attitude towards the whole situation.


----------



## ggroy (Oct 28, 2010)

Herschel said:


> Call me when WotC moves their HQ to the Caymans.




Nah.

They'll move the WotC HQ to the moon.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Oct 28, 2010)

dmccoy1693 said:


> I had an aunt that worked for a department store for several years. Every year they did layoffs of their highest paid people. SHe said everyone knew it was coming and you just dealt with that reality. When those that were hired a year before you were, you polished your resume and left when you found any other job, even if it paid less. You knew it wasn't a reflection of your job performance or your worth as a person, it was just the reality of working for that crummy company.
> 
> With as heavily ingrained as yearly layoffs are at WotC, I'm willing to bet the employees there have a similar attitude towards the whole situation.



As somebody who has managed to jump ship before layoffs occurred on more than one occasion, I agree.  I saw the writing on the wall and took action rather than waiting and praying it wasn't me.  I learned that in my first job out of college where I was certain I was safe since I was running my lab.  

I left one place where everyone thought I was crazy because I was giving up a position at a large, stable company for a small, risky one.  My risky company job lasted about six months longer than those of the department I left.  

I dislike the idea of Christmas layoffs, as it puts a cloud over the holiday season for those affected, but is it really any worse than losing your job at other times of the year?


----------



## Shemeska (Oct 28, 2010)

*It's a trap!*



ggroy said:


> Nah.
> 
> They'll move the WotC HQ to the moon.




It's a wonderful place where no one can mock you, no one can pick on you, and where there are no edition wars.


----------



## Azgulor (Oct 28, 2010)

dmccoy1693 said:


> I had an aunt that worked for a department store for several years. Every year they did layoffs of their highest paid people. SHe said everyone knew it was coming and you just dealt with that reality. When those that were hired a year before you were, you polished your resume and left when you found any other job, even if it paid less. You knew it wasn't a reflection of your job performance or your worth as a person,* it was just the reality of working for that crummy company*.
> 
> With as heavily ingrained as yearly layoffs are at WotC, I'm willing to bet the employees there have a similar attitude towards the whole situation.




<Emphasis mine.>

See, this is the crux of the issue for me.  

As others have stated, this bi-annual layoff policy works for WotC.  In other words, it's proven to be a viable business practice.  The policy is a fact and the fact that the trend has been observable for several years strongly suggests it's a viable business practice for WotC.

However, WotC is, as is frequently reiterated here, the 800 lb. gorilla of the RPG industry.  Supposedly, their sales numbers, revenues, & by extension their success, is orders of magnitudes greater than their closest competitor.  4e sells great, DDI is a new lucrative revenue stream.  Working for WotC is supposed to be the pinnacle working experience within the RPG industry.

In other words,* it ain't supposed to be a crappy place to work*.  If all of the statements of the preceding paragraph are true (and I'm inclined to think that they are, FWIW), then are we truly supposed to believe that this policy of whacking talent is the only viable business practice WotC could adopt?

I don't buy that for a second.

And that's where I have the issue.  If WotC doesn't _have_ to adopt this policy, then they are _choosing to do so_.  If it is a choice then I have a much, much harder time passing it off as "it's business".


----------



## Ourph (Oct 29, 2010)

Azgulor said:


> And that's where I have the issue.  If WotC doesn't _have_ to adopt this policy, then they are _choosing to do so_.  If it is a choice then I have a much, much harder time passing it off as "it's business".



So don't ever work there. Easy fix.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 29, 2010)

Azgulor said:


> However, WotC is, as is frequently reiterated here, the 800 lb. gorilla of the RPG industry.  Supposedly, their sales numbers, revenues, & by extension their success, is orders of magnitudes greater than their closest competitor.  4e sells great, DDI is a new lucrative revenue stream.  Working for WotC is supposed to be the pinnacle working experience within the RPG industry.




That last sentence is highly questionable.  All the others are about success in the market, which historically (and presently) has little to do with the experiences of the employees.


----------



## Adso (Oct 29, 2010)

Umbran said:


> That last sentence is highly questionable.  All the others are about success in the market, which historically (and presently) has little to do with the experiences of the employees.




As someone who worked for WotC for a little over 9 years, I can tell you that it is a great place to work. The people are fantastic, the offices are great, and the pay and the benefits are good. 

The worst part is holding your breath for the layoffs (second worst is some of meetings). I survived 8 rounds of layoffs until the last ones got me. Layoffs at WotC come for a variety of reasons, none of them are good. At the same time the severance is often very fair and you often get freelance work after the severance is up. I hope no one gets laid off this Christmas, but if it does happen there is life after WotC.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 29, 2010)

Adso said:


> As someone who worked for WotC for a little over 9 years, I can tell you that it is a great place to work. The people are fantastic, the offices are great, and the pay and the benefits are good.




And, by no means did I want to claim that working for WotC was bad.  

I was picking apart a bit of logic.  Being the best in the market does not imply that it must be a good experience for the workers.  Even if it is the best experience for the workers in the industry, doesn't mean there's not the occasional bit in there which kinda stinks.  Holding a layoff axe over employees every year before the holidays is what I'd call sub-optimal.

Mind you, the chance of my ever working for WtoC is negligible.  I wonder if my opinion of the practice would change if I actually had to make the choice.


----------



## Azgulor (Oct 29, 2010)

Umbran said:


> I was picking apart a bit of logic.




That comment was only made based on the posts made on this site by current & former WotC employees & others in the industry.  It was only meant to illustrate that WotC does not have a reputation of having a corporate culture indicative of a company in decline whereby regular layoffs are a necessity rather than a choice.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Oct 29, 2010)

Azgulor said:


> As others have stated, this bi-annual layoff policy works for WotC.  In other words, it's proven to be a viable business practice.  The policy is a fact and the fact that the trend has been observable for several years strongly suggests it's a viable business practice for WotC.
> 
> However, WotC is, as is frequently reiterated here, the 800 lb. gorilla of the RPG industry.  Supposedly, their sales numbers, revenues, & by extension their success, is orders of magnitudes greater than their closest competitor.  4e sells great, DDI is a new lucrative revenue stream.  [snip]
> 
> ...



 There are a couple of things to keep in mind: 

While WotC may be the 800 lb. gorilla, that does not necessarily mean their operating margins are better than others in the industry, so while they may have great sales, it is possible that they are operating on the razor's edge (admiittedly it is probably a much bigger razor than say, Paizo).  If that is the case, layoffs are the simplest way to pull back from tipping over the edge.  Since we cannot get financials for WotC, we cannot know one way or the other.

WotC is the only RPG publisher I know of that is part of a much larger corporation.  Business practices will be influenced by the expectations of the parent company.


----------



## Azgulor (Oct 29, 2010)

Thornir Alekeg said:


> There are a couple of things to keep in mind:
> 
> While WotC may be the 800 lb. gorilla, that does not necessarily mean their operating margins are better than others in the industry, so while they may have great sales, it is possible that they are operating on the razor's edge (admiittedly it is probably a much bigger razor than say, Paizo).  If that is the case, layoffs are the simplest way to pull back from tipping over the edge.  Since we cannot get financials for WotC, we cannot know one way or the other.
> 
> WotC is the only RPG publisher I know of that is part of a much larger corporation.  Business practices will be influenced by the expectations of the parent company.




While everything you've presented is possible, none of it is at odds with the supposition that WotC chooses this policy rather than being forced to it.  There are many strategies that could be employed including the path of least resistance.  (If that's what the regular firings are.)

And while I'm sure WotC has much larger operating costs & expenditures, as you said, none of us have hard data.

Lacking such data or reports from former WotC employees supporting a hypothesis of "WotC is barely profitable", I'm going to reasonably conclude that isn't the case.

If your theory is true, than D&D is hanging on by a slim margin.  However, I'm willing to bet that in the next Edition War/Sales-#-Speculation thread that surfaces, we'll have posters coming out in significant numbers reminding everyone how insignificant WotC's competition is when compared against the 800 lb. gorilla.  How profitable D&D is, how successful DDI is, how valuable the D&D brand is, etc.

While I'm sure one could craft a scenario that fits it, it's not plausible that both operating conditions are true.  It's certainly not plausible that it's been true and sustainable in such a fashion for _*years*_.  This little anniversary process has been around since before the launch of 4e.  Since then, we've had reduced competition via the abandonment of the OGL by WotC, the introduction of the DDI subscriptions as a net new revenue stream, and the introduction of a significant (degree of significance is debatable) competitor emerge in the form of Pathfinder.  All amidst a global economic slowdown/recession.  Yet the policy has held consistent despite signficant changes in the RPG market & WotC's business model.

So... IMO we're back to it being a choice rather than a necessity.  YMMV.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Oct 29, 2010)

In all honesty, I don't believe that they are barely profitable.  It is much more likely that they are barely exceeding profit margins expected of them by their coporate masters.  As they approach the end of the fiscal year, they see that they are not going to make their goals and so need to make changes.  They either need to cut costs or increase revenue.  Since increasing revenue isn't really an option on such a short-term basis, cost-cutting is the only choice.  

What it comes down to, is I believe these are short-term decisions and, while there are other choices they could make,  none are as expedient as layoffs.  Ideally WotC would be able to do long-term planning to reduce costs and increase revenue and not need to maintain this pattern, but the economy and other market forces make that kind of planning not so simple.


----------



## Dedekind (Oct 29, 2010)

OnlineDM said:


> I go back and forth on this, but I ultimately feel okay about my company's approach.  If you only hire people that you really NEED, then you're less likely to lay a bunch of people off when belts have to be tightened since you won't have a lot of excess staff.
> 
> It sucks for people who are currently looking for jobs, of course, but I think it's an okay strategy (for both companies and workers) in the long run.




You make a very good point. The whole thing is complicated, however, by the fact that the workload can be volatile. At the peak, you may 30 people, but the trough may require 20. This is where freelancers come in, I guess, and we know WotC makes use of that.

On a different note, my company reduces staff by not filling vacancies. How often do people actually leave WotC R&D on their own?


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 29, 2010)

There are far too many factors involved to be able to figure out the cause of a particular layoff.

It's all based on budgets.  A department gets it's budget cut in a year, and that means they need to cut expenses somehow. Usually that is done by laying people off, but it can also be done by pay cuts, and cuts in other expenses.

Regardless, the reasons for a budget cut are numerous.  Sometimes it means the company is doing WELL, not bad.  Sometimes what it means is profits went up to the point where the company can almost afford to expand into a new department, and so needs to make budget cuts in other departments to make up the difference between what they can almost afford for the new department and what they need to really do it right.

Sometimes it means sales are down.  Sometimes it means so many projects were completed that there is simply less to do.  Sometimes it means the parent company is buying another company, and they need the money to do that.  Or because there will be redundancies in positions somewhere from an acquisition.

I could go on and on about possible reasons, but my point is there are too many factors involved, and there is no way to know for certain if it means the company is doing well or poorly, seeing big profits or not, or anything of the sort.

That said, this is the part I find tasteless:



AnthonyRoberson said:


> I wonder who will get the axe this year?


----------



## avin (Oct 30, 2010)

Well, maybe is tasteless (and maybe cruel) to post on this board... but it's almost like a game after all these years and I bet many EnWorld readers have this question popping on their minds.

I do.


----------



## ggroy (Oct 30, 2010)

Playing "dead pool"?

Dead pool - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## jaerdaph (Oct 30, 2010)

Well the good news is, Paizo is usually HIRING.


----------



## nedjer (Oct 30, 2010)

jaerdaph said:


> Well the good news is, Paizo is usually HIRING.




At present that consists of an Internship. 20 hours a week of totally unpaid hard work with zero contract and few rights. Promises "large workload" and "aggressive deadlines". Makes WotC look enlightened. If they're making as much money as their leader keeps claiming why don't they offer a proper wage for a hard day's work? Pure shady IMO


----------



## jaerdaph (Oct 30, 2010)

nedjer said:


> At present that consists of an Internship. 20 hours a week of totally unpaid hard work with zero contract and few rights. Promises "large workload" and "aggressive deadlines". Makes WotC look enlightened. If they're making as much money as their leader keeps claiming why don't they offer a proper wage for a hard day's work? Pure shady IMO


----------



## nedjer (Oct 30, 2010)

jaerdaph said:


>




What a babe! I want to marry her 

I'll resist the temptation to post a few pics of Fidel cheering me on and simply ask - do you want games produced by the best talent or do you want games produced mainly by those with parents who can afford to subside their college and wages until they're 30 and to the tune of 10s of thousands of dollars?


----------



## CharlesRyan (Oct 30, 2010)

Mistwell said:


> There are far too many factors involved to be able to figure out the cause of a particular layoff.
> 
> It's all based on budgets.  A department gets it's budget cut in a year, and that means they need to cut expenses somehow. Usually that is done by laying people off, but it can also be done by pay cuts, and cuts in other expenses.
> 
> Regardless, the reasons for a budget cut are numerous [many good ones snipped]




Mistwell's points are dead on. WotC's budgeting cycle is based on a calendar year, which means budgets for the next year are put together, honed, and approved in September, October, and November. At the end of that process, whatever cost-cutting measures are indicated are then carried out.

For obvious reasons, I'm not a fan of WotC layoffs, and my personal view is that they're too quick to accept job cuts as a cost-cutting tool--but that's an issue of philosophy. But I also point you back to my friend and ex-colleague Stephen Radney-Macfarland's post. Despite this cavalier attitude, WotC is a terrific place to work when you're there, and when they show you the door they generally do it with a supportive, even generous severance package. Small consolation, perhaps, but I've been treated worse--much worse--in other layoffs.


----------



## MoxieFu (Oct 30, 2010)

ggroy said:


> Playing "dead pool"?
> 
> Dead pool - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




And Abe Vigoda is STILL alive!

abe vigoda status


----------



## Aus_Snow (Oct 31, 2010)

Tiitha said:


> It's not very nice to talk about peoples' careers ending from layoffs, even if it will happen. As someone who enjoys the elements of game design, art, and storytelling, I can understand how much it could suck to lose a job like that.



Yes, quite.


----------



## James Jacobs (Oct 31, 2010)

nedjer said:


> At present that consists of an Internship. 20 hours a week of totally unpaid hard work with zero contract and few rights. Promises "large workload" and "aggressive deadlines". Makes WotC look enlightened. If they're making as much money as their leader keeps claiming why don't they offer a proper wage for a hard day's work? Pure shady IMO




Incorrect. We've hired several folks in the past several weeks, including customer service, graphic designers, marketing folks, and designers/developers/editors. Our internship program is pretty standard when it comes to how internship programs work (aka: you get paid in experience and college credit).

As for WotC's practice of laying folks off, I can't say that I'm a fan of it (having been one of the folks who got laid off from WotC several years ago), and I really REALLY hope that the yearly tradition doesn't follow through this year.


----------



## nedjer (Oct 31, 2010)

James Jacobs said:


> Incorrect. We've hired several folks in the past several weeks, including customer service, graphic designers, marketing folks, and designers/developers/editors. Our internship program is pretty standard when it comes to how internship programs work (aka: you get paid in experience and college credit).
> 
> As for WotC's practice of laying folks off, I can't say that I'm a fan of it (having been one of the folks who got laid off from WotC several years ago), and I really REALLY hope that the yearly tradition doesn't follow through this year.




On the basis of that much of my comment was clearly out of context.  

Forgive me 

You also confirm (more than lengthy discussions of possible sales figures) how well Piazo/ Pathfinder is doing.

Internships are a different matter - for me. They're standard in the US, but not in the UK. Economic pressures are forcing a move in the same direction which is not welcome. Twenty years ago going to university was free here and our students now leave with debts of $30K+.

Personally, I'd think it fairer to go beyond the standard and offer some kind of subsistence payment or gratuity/ expenses. The result, hopefully, would be a steady stream of even more loyal future employees, who you'd supported when it made a real difference to them.

Or how about The Pathfinder Scholarship? An opportunity to get other people to stick up your posters on careers noticeboards, library walls and students' centres in colleges every year? Add in the press announcements (start and outcome) and . . .


----------



## Adso (Oct 31, 2010)

nedjer said:


> At present that consists of an Internship. 20 hours a week of totally unpaid hard work with zero contract and few rights. Promises "large workload" and "aggressive deadlines". Makes WotC look enlightened. If they're making as much money as their leader keeps claiming why don't they offer a proper wage for a hard day's work? Pure shady IMO




As someone who teaches game design at college, I can tell you this is a great opportunity for _students_. Many are required to find and internship at a game company during their senior year, and not all of them want to make video games. I always direct those students to the Paizo internship program. 

I wish WotC offered something like this. They have had interns in the past, but it's been very sporadic.


----------



## nedjer (Oct 31, 2010)

Adso said:


> As someone who teaches game design at college, I can tell you this is a great opportunity for _students_. Many are required to find and internship at a game company during their senior year, and not all of them want to make video games. I always direct those students to the Paizo internship program.
> 
> I wish WotC offered something like this. They have had interns in the past, but it's been very sporadic.




Fully accept that there can be internships and internships. When a games professional happily recommends Paizo I can probably expect a reply from a dozen former Paizo Interns who now work for the company and had the best time of their lives as Paizo Interns.

I just don't see the Intern system as a whole as being an appropriate model. Not on a left/ right political level, but as making mid- to long-term sense.

The dwindling band of young college students is going to be/ is being asked to take the burden of ageing populations with pension deficits, national debts and huge healthcare costs. At the same time they're laden with personal debt and interest payments if they choose to go into college instead of straight into work. Better education is where future profits lie, so economies that wish to be able to pay their way don't benefit from limiting the range and number of able college students.

Heck, I'm thinking of applying for a Paizo internship next year, (I'm sure they'll have me now ), but I remain pretty convinced that the Internship system as a whole doesn't offer a level playing field or long-term economic advantage. If I were a student today, I'd do college and an Internship, then rapidly leave the country for better pay.


----------



## Wicht (Oct 31, 2010)

nedjer said:


> If I were a student today, I'd do college and an Internship, then rapidly leave the country for better pay.




I'm not sure that game designers as a whole make a whole lot more in other countries around the world.


----------



## Shemeska (Oct 31, 2010)

nedjer said:


> but I remain pretty convinced that the Internship system as a whole doesn't offer a level playing field or long-term economic advantage.




I wish that I'd done more internships when I was in college or even when I was still in highschool. As it was, I did a year of work with an environmental carcinogenesis group with the EPA, though it had ultimately little to do with what I did in grad school or now in the corporate world. Washing dishes and doing solution prep for $9.15 an hour in a lab was good to pay for food in college, but the internships helped out a whole heck of a lot more for direct experience and just getting a feel of a field, job stuff, etc.


----------



## nedjer (Oct 31, 2010)

Odd turn of events. Dude arrives at my door in a darked-out, black limousine. 

Says I've won 'The Scholarship' and I'm to go to a Halloween celebration.

I get in the back with a real skinny guy, avoiding his scythe on the way. 

The guy on the back seat's not talkative, but the music's cool - and he just gave me a free spade.

Looking forward to the rest of Halloween


----------



## Mark CMG (Nov 1, 2010)

nedjer said:


> What a babe! I want to marry her





You like her.  You really like her.


----------



## Banshee16 (Nov 1, 2010)

TheYeti1775 said:


> Would have to beg to differ for being the only good reasons.
> Case in point, the big three auto manufactures used to use layoffs in the event of factory retoolings and what not.
> By using the layoff, and the fact the retooling was taking 6+ weeks it made their 'former employees' eligibile for all their unemployment benefits.  Had they simply said a work furlough, the employees wouldn't have been eligible for any benefits.  As long as it took more than 6 weeks than the employees remained eligible and could be 'rehired' back to the line again.  Though this has been changing in the last 20 years.




Yes......and we can see where those practices got the big three.  One filing for bankruptcy, one surviving by pure luck since they refinanced pretty much *everything* a few short years before the crash hit, and the third almost going under.  Two of them depending on extensive government bailouts to survive.

And overall customer satisfaction levels and quality of product at a low.  It's improving....but I don't think anyone can claim that use of layoffs helped them.

My brother was an engineer with one of the big three, and eventually got out because of the instability.  He had the foresight to abandon the whole Detroit/Windsor area and sell his house before everything crashed and home values plummeted.......overall there's a lot going on that the general public doesn't see, and I think it displays a short-sightedness in management that has had far reaching implications in the quality of their products.  

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Nov 1, 2010)

TheYeti1775 said:


> You also have the option of pay cuts.  Are you willing to take a pay cut to keep Bob the Game Designer employed?  Yeah didn't think so.  I'd have you working for pennies on the dollar in a few years if that became the practice.




I have friends working in the IT industry (programmers) who were directly faced with this choice.  The company said that they could either get staff to agree to work 1 day a week for free until things turned around during the recession (and I think it became 1 day for free one week, 2 days for free the second week), with the alternatives being layoffs.  The employees voted and agreed to it, rather than start losing jobs.

Yeah, it sucked, but it was better than looking for work in a situation where so many companies were streamlining their staffing levels.

Anyways, it's been a year, and the company has restored pay to two of the days, so now it's just 1 day for free every two weeks. 

I can't see a company using this tactic to get staff to work for pennies on the dollar.  I mean really, that's just silly.  Particularly in skilled professions, that's a one-way ticket to finding that you can't hire good staff..and consequently can't produce your product anymore.  Employees (any smart ones) will typically understand their value on the market.  A company needs to have a pretty good value proposition to expect to be able to hire good staff for less than those staff know they can get somewhere else.  Otherwise, the company just ends up with the rejects that nobody else wants.

This particular company was just one example, but from everything I've read, it's by no mean an isolated instance.

And solutions like this tend to generate more loyalty from staff in the long run.

Banshee


----------



## PaizoCEO (Nov 2, 2010)

nedjer said:


> Internships are a different matter - for me. They're standard in the US, but not in the UK. Economic pressures are forcing a move in the same direction which is not welcome. Twenty years ago going to university was free here and our students now leave with debts of $30K+.
> 
> Personally, I'd think it fairer to go beyond the standard and offer some kind of subsistence payment or gratuity/ expenses. The result, hopefully, would be a steady stream of even more loyal future employees, who you'd supported when it made a real difference to them.




What most people don't realize is that a lot of the folks who get internships aren't looking to get paid.  As a matter of fact, for many of them, they are trying to get college credit while getting work experience and most of the college internship programs prohibit us paying the interns.  I will say that we usually give them a small token of our appreciation on their last day of internship.

-Lisa


----------



## nedjer (Nov 2, 2010)

Mark CMG said:


> You like her.  You really like her.




Looks an awful lot like Sally Field to me. Not one of her better pics and she must be kinda older by now. However, she's a) intelligent, b) feisty and c) looked like this


----------



## nedjer (Nov 2, 2010)

Mark CMG said:


> You like her.  You really like her.




Looks an awful lot like Sally Field to me. Not one of her better pics  and she must be kinda older by now. However, she's a) intelligent, b)  feisty and c)


----------



## nedjer (Nov 2, 2010)

How rubbish was that double post. Two lots of text and only one bikini pic


----------



## nedjer (Nov 2, 2010)

PaizoCEO said:


> What most people don't realize is that a lot of the folks who get internships aren't looking to get paid.  As a matter of fact, for many of them, they are trying to get college credit while getting work experience and most of the college internship programs prohibit us paying the interns.  I will say that we usually give them a small token of our appreciation on their last day of internship.
> 
> -Lisa




The system clearly kicks in earlier in the US, as what you're describing is handled through work placements for undergraduates in the UK, i.e. they're a student and, while expectations may be high, they're not expected to perform to the standard of professionals.

Graduate interns are the source of concern in the UK. I'll skip the emotive clips of weeping Interns and stick with a fairly objective take on it [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4_0CYTnPgg"]from the BBC[/ame]. Notably, the Conservative Minister, (very business-orientated), is pretty concerned himself, as there are almost two systems in operation, with some gaining really valuable experience and others (quite a lot) being treated very poorly.

I don't doubt that you're offering a really high quality internship; but I maintain that if companies are looking for a professional standard of work  Internships should deliver a number of tangible benefits. You may be doing that on the last day, and through good references and taking Interns on to the staff when you can . . . However, while that all remains discretionary, a whole lot of Interns aren't as fortunate as your Interns


----------



## Mark CMG (Nov 2, 2010)

nedjer said:


> Looks an awful lot like Sally Field to me. Not one of her better pics  and she must be kinda older by now. However, she's a) intelligent, b)  feisty and c)





_Must spread around XP before . . ._


----------



## Erik Mona (Nov 2, 2010)

nedjer said:


> Looks an awful lot like Sally Field to me. Not one of her better pics  and she must be kinda older by now. However, she's a) intelligent, b)  feisty and c)




That old Sally Field picture gave me Boniva.

--Erik


----------



## nedjer (Nov 2, 2010)

Having clearly established that Paizo offer a form of Internship that merits a solid recommendation . . .

Paizo have made a real success of exploiting a strong niche, added value to their core system, set up a tight e-commerce operation and made money. We now find them recruiting staff and, presumably, looking for further growth. 

There may be more growth in out AD&Ding AD&D, but that doesn't grow the market as a whole or build a wider community. Which leads me to ask: do Paizo (or others) have plans or a commitment to making TRPGs more accessible to kids, youths and/ or female gamers?

There are regular threads here and elsewhere, (such as 'RPGs and Kids' or the current 'What Do You Do for RPGs'), which make it clear that parents 'in the know' place a high 'value' on getting their kids into TRPGs. The posts in such threads consistently show girls and boys getting involved at relatively early ages with positive outcomes reported time and again.

So, will anyone commit, on any level, to going beyond that short ,(well-intentioned), but unfortunate D&D Adventure that was aimed at kids (something of Hesiod?)?

For example, illustration heavy, short scenarios with flexible rails and a balance of gameplay elements alongside combat. Or special offer family bundle packs. Icon self-certificating of products by age, graphic violence and any sexual content. Videos/ cartoon videos that promote RPGs as a whole instead of a recent WotC Githyanki specific effort. A handy to carry, 'Starter/ Youth' Edition, which takes out Vanilla Dark such as Demons, Summonings, Devils and the kind of backstory in Dragon Age. (Large Tarantula Hawk Wasp variants and Vampire variants are just as scary, but less likely to leave a parent open to having to explain themselves).


----------



## nedjer (Nov 2, 2010)

Erik Mona said:


> That old Sally Field picture gave me Boniva.
> 
> --Erik




Sally had a rival for my affections.


----------



## Erik Mona (Nov 2, 2010)

Is that Jodie Foster?

Nedjer, are you really John Hinkley?

--Erik


----------



## jaerdaph (Nov 3, 2010)

Pathfinder really needs a Flying Nun class.


----------



## James Jacobs (Nov 3, 2010)

nedjer said:


> ...asked about expanding the RPG market...




I can comment. We are indeed working on an Introductory game. I don't have much more to say about it right now... but it's something that we've been working on for a couple of months now. It's nowhere near ready for folks to see much about yet though.


----------



## nedjer (Nov 3, 2010)

Erik Mona said:


> Is that Jodie Foster?
> 
> Nedjer, are you really John Hinkley?
> 
> --Erik




I get the similarity. I was thinking more along the lines of casting aside my zimmer frame. Here's a clearer shot 

Not so much John Hinkley as Travis Bickle


----------



## nedjer (Nov 3, 2010)

jaerdaph said:


> Pathfinder really needs a Flying Nun class.




Sally's contribution to the development of fixed-wing fighter technologies deserves to be more widely recognised.

Unusually cunning of them to hide the development of a stealth technology behind a nun's costume.


----------



## nedjer (Nov 3, 2010)

James Jacobs said:


> I can comment. We are indeed working on an Introductory game. I don't have much more to say about it right now... but it's something that we've been working on for a couple of months now. It's nowhere near ready for folks to see much about yet though.




Good of you to contribute to a thread that's already descended to the level of flying nuns.

An introductory game sounds very promising. I'll spare you a long requests list. I would, however, appreciate a Limited Wish.

My day-to-day work brings me into regular contact with situations where learning and enjoyment breaks down because the tutor/ tuition is unaware of, or struggling to address, the skills gap between the 'newbie' and the 'expert'. Whatever it takes, please put yourself and your co-designers in the place and mindset of 9-14 year-olds while you design this. Perhaps not at every stage, but . . .


----------



## jaerdaph (Nov 4, 2010)

nedjer said:


> Good of you to contribute to a thread that's already descended to the level of flying nuns.




Have you been reading this thread from the OP? Technically, this thread has ASCENDED.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Nov 4, 2010)




----------



## nedjer (Nov 4, 2010)

What the helll, lets live a little: a whole squadron of flying nuns 

You can be sure they're flying nuns, because of the looks on their faces - it takes a full day at Mach 3 to get a face like that.


----------



## czak (Nov 8, 2010)

Some good news for Stephen Radney-MacFarland who was laid off last year:

paizo.com - Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / General Discussion / Rumors about Paizo family growing ...


----------



## renau1g (Nov 8, 2010)

nedjer said:


> I just don't see the Intern system as a whole as being an appropriate model. Not on a left/ right political level, but as making mid- to long-term sense.




Internships are common in hard to get into industries (like ad agencies for example) because it's an investment in your future. Just like college/university. You pay $50k + a few years of schooling and not working (or whatever) for school hoping that your investment will pay off. 

People pay for experience and many times in the real world once people get their training and experience at a company they just jump ship to a larger or more lucrative job. The companies that actually spend lots of time training these employees should have some benefit rather than just a cost of their own time to get someone up to speed just to see them leave.


----------



## renau1g (Nov 8, 2010)

Banshee16 said:


> And overall customer satisfaction levels and quality of product at a low.  It's improving....but I don't think anyone can claim that use of layoffs helped them.




Quality is not at a low. Consumer perspective of quality is. Cadillac is the third best in the IQS while Ford is _just_ behind Toyota. 

"Even so, Chrysler’s, Ford’s and GM’s domestic brands have improved in initial quality by an average of 10 percent compared with 2008, surpassing the 8 percent rate of improvement by the industry overall, which is a step in the right direction." 

Lexus Tops J.D. Power Initial Quality Study - MSN Autos

Also, in the 3 year quality rating system, Buick is tied with Lexus, Lincoln and Porsche according to the 2010 Vehicle Dependability Study.

Ratings | J.D. Power

Additionally, 2010 Automotive Performance Execution and Layout (APEAL) (Identifies owner delight with the design and performance of their new vehicles.) shows that Buick and Cadillac  are amongst the highest ratings. (http://www.jdpower.com/autos/rating...nd/sortcolumn-1/descending/page-/#page-anchor)


Not that imports are bad, but I'm pretty tired of people spouting misinformation about automakers.


----------



## nedjer (Nov 8, 2010)

renau1g said:


> Internships are common in hard to get into industries (like ad agencies for example) because it's an investment in your future. Just like college/university. You pay $50k + a few years of schooling and not working (or whatever) for school hoping that your investment will pay off.
> 
> People pay for experience and many times in the real world once people get their training and experience at a company they just jump ship to a larger or more lucrative job. The companies that actually spend lots of time training these employees should have some benefit rather than just a cost of their own time to get someone up to speed just to see them leave.




OK - we've got Bob. Bob ticks all the right boxes and has plenty of family cash and no commitments. He plays by the numbers, parties with the team and turns out reliable product with some support.

Then we've go Sue. Sue's a single-mum, works hard but has zero cash and some commitments. She's intuitive and highly creative, comes up with ingenious hooks on her own and, with firm editing, brings something new to the company.

I choose Sue


----------



## renau1g (Nov 9, 2010)

what does that have to do with internships? Are you saying Sue should be paid? Did she accept the unpaid internship? What fact pattern is here? She's a single mother so a profit making corporation should take care of her? 

If Sue's income from work is $0 then I'm sure the  government aid will be kicking in. How is she in a worse position than Bob? She has a child(ren) to come home to every night, far better than Bob's family cash (IMO)

Are you saying that interns _never_ turn out anything good and only cash-desperate folks produce? Interns typically come chock full of new ideas and bring an energy to the company so saying because someone has commitments or no commitments has any bearing on their final product makes no sense.


----------



## nedjer (Nov 9, 2010)

renau1g said:


> what does that have to do with internships? Are you saying Sue should be paid? Did she accept the unpaid internship? What fact pattern is here? She's a single mother so a profit making corporation should take care of her?
> 
> If Sue's income from work is $0 then I'm sure the  government aid will be kicking in. How is she in a worse position than Bob? She has a child(ren) to come home to every night, far better than Bob's family cash (IMO)
> 
> Are you saying that interns _never_ turn out anything good and only cash-desperate folks produce? Interns typically come chock full of new ideas and bring an energy to the company so saying because someone has commitments or no commitments has any bearing on their final product makes no sense.




Sweet driveby shooting in the first paragraph  Obviously, I'm saying that interns are the source and fruit of all evil and one more intern will undoubtedly tip us into a endless, desolate Dark Age.

It could, however, be totally misconstrued as saying a level playing field accesses the best talent


----------



## renau1g (Nov 9, 2010)

I don't understand driveby shooting reference either? We appear to have some sort of communication barrier. You quoted me but your post really didn't have much, if anything to do with my post. I tried to figure out the correlation to your post and internships. I also fail to see any way my post has anything to do with calling interns evil... 

I would also choose Sue, but I fail to see how it's _not_ a level playing field? All parties have the same opportunity. If you're saying that the unpaid portion will not allow Sue to enter the internship and thus the company loses her ability that may be true. Sadly, in society that is the case for many, how many less fortunate individuals can't go to college b/c of financial reasons and thus are locked into a poverty cycle?


----------



## nedjer (Nov 9, 2010)

renau1g said:


> I don't understand driveby shooting reference either? We appear to have some sort of communication barrier. You quoted me but your post really didn't have much, if anything to do with my post. I tried to figure out the correlation to your post and internships. I also fail to see any way my post has anything to do with calling interns evil...
> 
> I would also choose Sue, but I fail to see how it's _not_ a level playing field? All parties have the same opportunity. If you're saying that the unpaid portion will not allow Sue to enter the internship and thus the company loses her ability that may be true. Sadly, in society that is the case for many, how many less fortunate individuals can't go to college b/c of financial reasons and thus are locked into a poverty cycle?




Sorry - being 

We may have different level playing field thresholds. In Scotland healthcare is free at the point of need, there are currently no university fees and the elderly get free personal care. That standard of support is considered necessary here; while in the rest of the UK university fees are up to £9,000/ year and the elderly pay for personal care.


----------



## Mistwell (Dec 25, 2010)

So, no layoffs this December?


----------



## Shemeska (Dec 25, 2010)

Mistwell said:


> So, no layoffs this December?




Not that we've heard of. But with the rolling layoffs throughout the year, announced and otherwise, and the talk of them being understaffed as it stands, who else could they lay off and still function well?


----------



## Mistwell (Dec 25, 2010)

Shemeska said:


> Not that we've heard of. But with the rolling layoffs throughout the year, announced and otherwise, and the talk of them being understaffed as it stands, who else could they lay off and still function well?




So let me see if I understand you Shemeska.  You're spinning "no layoffs" as a negative?


----------



## ggroy (Dec 25, 2010)

Shemeska said:


> Not that we've heard of. But with the rolling layoffs throughout the year, announced and otherwise, and the talk of them being understaffed as it stands, who else could they lay off and still function well?




In principle, they can just use freelance contractors to take up the work on 4E splatbooks if they are indeed understaffed.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Dec 25, 2010)

Mistwell said:


> So let me see if I understand you Shemeska. You're spinning "no layoffs" as a negative?




Actually, it sounds as though Shemeska is "spinning" no layoffs as "It's not really 'no layoffs', it's just no layoffs right now, in the holiday season...they've been doing it all year long."


But I'll step back for a moment and give WotC all the accolades they deserve for not firing people at christmas!

GRATS WotC!



And, (more sincerely,) my best wishes to all writers and developers in the RPG field...I, and I can only assume many others here at ENworld, really appreciate you, and wish you long lived and fruitful careers.


----------



## Mistwell (Dec 25, 2010)

Aberzanzorax said:


> Actually, it sounds as though Shemeska is "spinning" no layoffs as "It's not really 'no layoffs', it's just no layoffs right now, in the holiday season...they've been doing it all year long.".




You mean the "unannounced layoffs", which is pure speculation on his behalf with no basis in any evidence? Or the "talk" of them being understaffed, which is pure speculation on his behalf with no basis in any evidence?  Or maybe the speculation about ongoing slow layoffs with no basis in evidence?

As far as we know, they had one layoff, and after that layoff people in this thread were speculating there would be another one during the Christmas season.  There is no evidence any such Christmas layoff happened.  Spinning that with stuff Shem is speculating about without an evidence to support it in reaction to hearing there was no Christmas layoff is, at best, a bizarre reaction.  I mean, who reacts to that kind of good news by imagining it's bad news?


----------



## ggroy (Dec 25, 2010)

Mistwell said:


> I mean, who reacts to that kind of good news by imagining it's bad news?




A conspiracy theorist?


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Dec 25, 2010)

I wasn't expecting layoffs this time of year this year.  Isn't that big D&D Essentials brouhaha thingy still being churned out?

But, I'll cautiously join in the with the accolades for now.  Great job not laying people off this time, WotC!  It's not often you surpass our expactations for you, no matter how much we lower them, and this time you've really outdone yourselves.


----------



## Shemeska (Dec 26, 2010)

Aberzanzorax said:


> Actually, it sounds as though Shemeska is "spinning" no layoffs as "It's not really 'no layoffs', it's just no layoffs right now, in the holiday season...they've been doing it all year long."




Pretty much this. 

Otherwise any speculation on my intent and content is just Mistwell being the Mistwell we've come to love and expect.


----------



## Mistwell (Dec 26, 2010)

Shemeska said:


> Pretty much this.
> 
> Otherwise any speculation on my intent and content is just Mistwell being the Mistwell we've come to love and expect.




Shem, other than the one layoff earlier in 2010, what other layoffs are you aware of that they have been doing all year long?


----------



## Shemeska (Dec 26, 2010)

Mistwell said:


> Shem, other than the one layoff earlier in 2010, what other layoffs are you aware of that they have been doing all year long?




Off the top of my head, they gutted the fiction/novel editor staff later on in the year. I think there was one other smaller round, but it's easy enough to google, and I'm currently digging out from the NC snowpocalypse. But snowed in with the girlfriend is not the worst fate I can think of.


----------



## ggroy (Dec 26, 2010)

Shemeska said:


> Off the top of my head, they gutted the fiction/novel editor staff later on in the year.




END OF PART TWO | Fantasy Author's Handbook
Philip Athans - LinkedIn


----------



## TarionzCousin (Dec 26, 2010)

Shemeska said:


> Otherwise any speculation on my intent and content is just Mistwell being the Mistwell we've come to love and expect.



Ever since MerricB turned to the Dark Side,™ Sir Mistwell's the closest thing ENWorld has to an optimist. 

Ride on, white knight! I salute you. I, for one, appreciate your lack of cynicism.


----------



## Shazman (Dec 26, 2010)

MerricB didn't turn to the dark side.  His optimism simply couldn't withstand failure of the online character builder's magnitude.  Anyway, they'd laid off so much, so regularly, for so long, they probably have the bare minimum to keep functioning at this point.  They probably don't have enough to spare to lay off any more.


----------



## Mistwell (Dec 27, 2010)

Shemeska said:


> Off the top of my head, they gutted the fiction/novel editor staff later on in the year. I think there was one other smaller round




I am not aware of either of those layoffs as distinct from the one earlier layoff and did not see anything in a quick search.  Do you have a link for either?


----------



## Mistwell (Dec 28, 2010)

ggroy said:


> END OF PART TWO | Fantasy Author's Handbook
> Philip Athans - LinkedIn




That's the same mid-year layoff.

I am not aware of any layoff in 2010, other than the single mid-year layoff.  I know of a guy who was fired for stealing magic cards, but that's not a layoff.  

It's sure looking like there was one layoff in 2010, and all this "constant layoffs" stuff is speculation and/or fiction.


----------



## Shemeska (Dec 28, 2010)

Mistwell said:


> That's the same mid-year layoff.




The novel editor layoff (Athans and Evans) happened over a month and a half after the RPG layoffs.


----------



## tvknight415 (Dec 29, 2010)

Shazman said:


> They probably don't have enough to spare to lay off any more.




Maybe in a Python-esque move, they laid off the person responsible for laying off the staff?


----------

