# layoffs?



## EricNoah

One of my sad duties during my time as the D&D news guy was reporting on a round of layoffs at WotC.  

I see a note on Chris Pramas' Facebook page to the effect that he's hearing rumors of the same going on right now.  

Anyone have anything more substantial?


----------



## Scribble

EricNoah said:


> One of my sad duties during my time as the D&D news guy was reporting on a round of layoffs at WotC.
> 
> I see a note on Chris Pramas' Facebook page to the effect that he's hearing rumors of the same going on right now.
> 
> Anyone have anything more substantial?




Nothing substantial... but can I say I hope it's not true?

Layoffs suck.


----------



## Darrin Drader

My sources say that layoffs have definitely occurred.


----------



## DaveMage

Regrettably - 'tis the season.

Obviously, though, layoffs are everywhere these days so this is not a WotC-only issue for sure.


----------



## Shemeska

Sean K Reynolds mentions on his LJ that layoffs happened. But no names given.


----------



## PaizoCEO

Here are the names I have confirmed as of a few minutes ago:

Randy Buehler (VP of digital gaming)
Andrew Finch (director of digital games)
Stacy Longstreet (senior art director)
Julia Martin (editor)
William Meyers (creative manager, digital design)
Dave Noonan (game designer)
Jennifer Paige (online community manager)
Jennifer Powers (marketing)
Jonathan Tweet (game designer)

-Lisa Stevens
CEO
Paizo Publishing


----------



## DaveMage

Holy crap!!!


----------



## Rechan

> Dave Noonan (game designer)



Ow, my heart just got stabbed a little. 

I really like Noonan. I love his voice on the Podcasts, he is very outgoing. I can't put his name to the various 4e stuff (not sure what he did specifically), but I know he was very in the mix with it, and that makes me really sad. (Well, sadder than just knowing people are getting layed off). 



> Jonathan Tweet (game designer)



He still works for WotC? Wow. I also can't put his name to anything, but the nostalgia of him working on 3e makes me familiar enough with him to feel bad. Dang. 

I notice a lot of those are in the digital area. Might this be in response to the Gleemax failure? Or something over DDI not performing?


----------



## Aus_Snow

_Ouch_. Jeebus.

I hope things turn out well for them all.


----------



## Michael Silverbane

That sucks.

I wish all those that have been laid off the best of luck.


----------



## Darrin Drader

I owe a great deal to Julia Martin, so I consider this extremely unfortunate.


----------



## Shemeska

If Jennifer Paige aka Solice was fired, that sucks majorly. She did a damn fine job cleaning up the mess that a lot of folks felt that Mike / GamerZer0 had turned the WotC boards into during the Gleemax period. She was nice and she was polite, and too often a punching bag for the problems over there.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Woah.

Those are some pretty big names. Dave Noonan? Jonathan Tweet? Julia Martin? Randy Buehler?

Awful season for it, too. 

That sucks. Especially in this career climate.


----------



## Herremann the Wise

PaizoCEO said:


> Here are the names I have confirmed as of a few minutes ago:
> 
> Randy Buehler (VP of digital gaming)
> Andrew Finch (director of digital games)
> Stacy Longstreet (senior art director)
> Julia Martin (editor)
> William Meyers (creative manager, digital design)
> Dave Noonan (game designer)
> Jennifer Paige (online community manager)
> Jennifer Powers (marketing)
> Jonathan Tweet (game designer)
> 
> -Lisa Stevens
> CEO
> Paizo Publishing



Is this a typical cleaning out? Does this reflect on the success (or lack of) of DDI, or D&D in general? What should (if anything) be read into this?

Seems an awful lot of talent being cut adrift there. I'm sorry for all the guys there - right before Christmas too - but Dave Noonan in particular - I really like him. 

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## RefinedBean

Sweet mercy.  Do we have any other confirmation on those names?

(no offense to Lisa, of course)

Best of luck to those who were let go.


----------



## Rechan

More on layoff thoughts:

Could this be indicative of Hasbro? Not saying "The Corporate Suits are killin' our guys!" but more: has Hasbro made cuts in all areas of the company? This could simply be a 'We need to downsize all of our departments, to cover costs and salaries'.


----------



## EricNoah

Herremann the Wise said:


> Is this a typical cleaning out? Does this reflect on the success (or lack of) of DDI, or D&D in general? What should (if anything) be read into this?




I wouldn't read a lot into it.  

Does anyone remember the rough timeline for how the 3.0 layoffs went?  3E was released in August 2000.  Didn't the first big wave come in like Oct/Nov of that same year? And then there was another smaller round the next spring I think.  Boy I'm having trouble remembering...


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone

I can see the digital games layoffs, given WOTC's history.

Dave Noonan, given his role in 4E, is quite a surprise (unless it was voluntary).

Nothing like layoffs right before Christmas.


----------



## Darrin Drader

EricNoah said:


> I wouldn't read a lot into it.
> 
> Does anyone remember the rough timeline for how the 3.0 layoffs went?  3E was released in August 2000.  Didn't the first big wave come in like Oct/Nov of that same year? And then there was another smaller round the next spring I think.  Boy I'm having trouble remembering...




Yep. There are certain names I would expect to see if D&D was getting the axe, and so far I haven't seen any of those names come up. DDI is taking a massive hit though.


----------



## carmachu

Isnt this the second set of layoffs since 4e was released?


----------



## DaveMage

carmachu said:


> Isnt this the second set of layoffs since 4e was released?




Yes, it is.


----------



## d20Dwarf

EricNoah said:


> I wouldn't read a lot into it.
> 
> Does anyone remember the rough timeline for how the 3.0 layoffs went? 3E was released in August 2000. Didn't the first big wave come in like Oct/Nov of that same year? And then there was another smaller round the next spring I think. Boy I'm having trouble remembering...




Same pattern with 3.0 and 3.5, so this was expected to happen, although I'm surprised we haven't seen even more in RPG R&D...I suppose the full list hasn't been determined yet, though.


----------



## joethelawyer

carmachu said:


> Isnt this the second set of layoffs since 4e was released?





Yeah.  the first one was based around the digital thing too, wasn't it?  

I feel bad for these guys.  Man.  It's getting tougher and tougher out there.


----------



## EricNoah

Looked back through my archive, it was December 2000.  And Peter Adkison also left WotC in the same stroke.


----------



## Rechan

I hope that the game designers will get snapped up by various companies. Those are good minds right there.


----------



## Filcher

Herremann the Wise said:


> Is this a typical cleaning out? Does this reflect on the success (or lack of) of DDI, or D&D in general? What should (if anything) be read into this?




Given the current economic climate, and that Wizards seems to layoff key personnel on an annual cycle, I wouldn't read much into the layoffs.


----------



## joethelawyer

For you guys who are more in the know, how many people over there at WOTC who work for D&D or DDI are left?   I know for those involved this totally sucks, but as for the company, is this a drop in the bucket?  Or a good percentage of the D&D/DDI crew?  Are we cleaning house here, or just cleaning the closet?


----------



## Darrin Drader

Rechan said:


> I hope that the game designers will get snapped up by various companies. Those are good minds right there.




Who's out there to snap them up? Most RPG companies are so small that they're essentially run out of people's basements with contracted designers to keep the material flowing. White Wolf is the only other one that is large in the same sense as WotC. Some other companies with relatively small full time staffs are Paizo, FFG, Steve Jackson Games, and Mongoose. I seriously doubt anyone on that list is in need of full time employees right now.


----------



## doctorhook

This is a joke, right? That list can't be serious! Randy Buehler? Stacy Longstreet? DAVE FREAKIN' NOONAN? I think I recall reading things written by almost every one of those names during the 4E spoiler-scramble this time a year ago.

...Sad day.



carmachu said:


> Isnt this the second set of layoffs since 4e was released?



Yeah, but don't forget that 4E had the misfortune to be launched on the cusp of the worst economic downturn in America since, what, 1990? It sucks, but I'll blame the economic conditions before the products.


----------



## RefinedBean

Maybe FFG, but to what use would they put 'em?

Hopefully, since these layoffs are well-known to be cyclical, they already have plans for where to go next.

Game designers and the online gaming people could probably try to step out of the RPG business and work for companies like Disney...anyone that has marketing tie-ins with their products, online games based around popular series, etc.

Wish I could buy 'em all a beer.  Drinks are on me if you can get here, guys and gals!


----------



## Tigerbunny

This also makes some sense from the perspective that at this point in the launch cycle for 4E, the direct-employment component of the dev staff is likely to need some trimming. I would be amazed if they hadn't made some cuts at this level, considering the economic environment and the likely needs of their release schedule going forward. It is as much likely to indicate a shift to more work-for-hire and less internal product dev as anything else.

I expect the Digital cuts may be more meaningful, though. That's clearly limping its way toward viability, but it's also clear that there's been some significant changes in vision and scope for the digital initiative in the last year. They'll want to retool to reflect those changes.


----------



## Gundark

it sucks...there are some big names there. Losing your job before christmas always sucks. I know from xp.


----------



## Obryn

Tigerbunny said:


> This also makes some sense from the perspective that at this point in the launch cycle for 4E, the direct-employment component of the dev staff is likely to need some trimming. I would be amazed if they hadn't made some cuts at this level, considering the economic environment and the likely needs of their release schedule going forward. It is as much likely to indicate a shift to more work-for-hire and less internal product dev as anything else.
> 
> I expect the Digital cuts may be more meaningful, though. That's clearly limping its way toward viability, but it's also clear that there's been some significant changes in vision and scope for the digital initiative in the last year. They'll want to retool to reflect those changes.



I was going to post something very similar to this, but you did it better.

Sadly, bad economy + game that's effectively out of development = shift to freelancers and away from staff.

Still, it's very, very sad.  Lots of really good names there, and I have no idea what it means for the DDI.

-O


----------



## doctorhook

Obryn said:


> ...
> 
> Still, it's very, very sad.  Lots of really good names there, and I have no idea what it means for the DDI.
> 
> -O



Not much, I sure hope. Things have been looking so promising lately!


----------



## Dragonhelm

My thoughts and prayers go out to those who got laid off.  May you still manage to have a good Christmas, Hannukah, or whatever holiday you celebrate.


----------



## CleverNickName

That's terrible news.  As others have said, there are a lot of big names on that list.  Hopefully they won't be out of work for long.


----------



## howandwhy99

Bad new for the season.  Best of luck to everyone looking for a job.


----------



## Melba Toast

Buehler took personal responsibility for the failures of D&D Insider and Gleemax back in August. Online play was, and is, one the principle bases for 4E, so it doesn't surprise me that they had to let him go.

The fact that WotC still haven't launched their online components is devastating. I'm sure they had to throw out their whole 2008 business strategy. 4E was rushed to release because they had to hit certain benchmarks. Had they known the online component would not be ready 8 months later, I think they probably would have held off. 

Not to worry though, IT is still a fertile employment market, especially for people with executive experience. He'll probably get snatched up by a video game developer.


----------



## Shroomy

Layoffs are rough and it sucks for everyone involved.  Based on this list, it looks like some of these were the result of the DDI delay and some were general cutbacks.  Hopefully, things work out for everyone.


----------



## Zaukrie

Layoffs are never a good thing (even if they help a company survive).

I'm sad about all the people, but the work that Randy did, just in posting DDI news, almost single handedly saved DDI, at least for me.

I'm shocked not to see any names in the DDM line (though that my be down to one person).


----------



## DM_Jeff

I don't care about editions or design, seeing some of these names get hit is truly saddening. Best of luck to these talented people.

-DM Jeff


----------



## Friadoc

Damn, that's a sad list, like any layoff list would be, but I owe Jonathan Tweet for the first freelance job I did, thanks my selection heading a 3e playtest team. Between playtesting 3e, which lead to some 3e product testing and some pre-release 3e PHBs, I had a head start or designing magic items, which landed my artifact, the Tear of Mormo, in Relics & Rituals and, thus, my first paid gig.

My best wishes and hopes for those laid off, hopefully things will turn around for them, quickly, as I know being laid off sucks, big time, as I've been laid off, twice, in the past handful of years, and I'm still recovering from it.

Best of wishes and luck to you and yours, people.


----------



## keterys

I'm shocked and deeply saddened. I recognize too many people on that list, and a couple in particular are a real kick in the gut.

Heartfelt hope to everyone to bounce back/forward.


----------



## Ghostwind

My heartfelt sympathies go out to those who are affected and their families.


----------



## WotC_Dave

Thanks for the kind words, folks. They mean a great deal. And my wife was reading over my shoulder, and they cheered her up _immensely_.

I can confirm the essential truth of what's been reported, and I am indeed one of the ones let go today. When you're in the midst of the process, you don't really get a sense of what's going on elsewhere in the building. Thus I didn't know some of the names until I read them here. They're quality people. In a weird way, I'm proud to be among them. (I'd rather be employed, sure, but you take the solace you can at a moment like this.)

I'll leave the prognosticating and "...but what does this MEAN?!?" stuff to others. I think the game is in good shape--and I think it's in good hands. In my 10 years at Wizards, I survived a lot of these layoffs--including cuts deeper than this. More to the point for you guys, the _game_ survived deeper cuts than this.

Maybe I didn't say this enough when I was part of "the Man," but the ENWorld community is absolutely terrific. The level of discourse here continues to be top-notch, and there's always an interesting thread sitting right there, begging to be read. But if you're already a regular here, you've already figured that out, huh?

--David Noonan, who should probably get a new user name.


----------



## freyar

Wow, surprising news (to me at least)!  My best wishes to all these folks -- good luck finding new places!


----------



## Mr Baron

*Terrible News*

My sincere best wishes to all those effected.  I hope everyone finds new work soon!


----------



## Beckett

Good luck to David and the rest, and thanks for all you've contributed to my games.


----------



## darjr

I hope for the best for all of you.


----------



## darjr

Let me just add, Dave, me and my kid would listen and really enjoy the podcast. We'll miss your voice and mug. If you continue to podcast please let the community know where.

Not even to mention how many books in my home and my games have your name on them.


----------



## Ycore Rixle

Good luck to everyone, and my best wishes for all affected. Those are some big names. Dave, you're a class act, and the few chances we had to work together were a lot of fun.


----------



## Pour

Best of luck Dave. I can't relate how much I respect your continued enthusiasm for the game, or your level of tact and poise during a trying point in the industry. You truly are a cut above and an inspiring example of what a designer and a professional should be. You are the man!


----------



## Herremann the Wise

WotC_Dave said:


> --David Noonan, who should probably get a new user name.



Yeah... and maybe work on that post count while you're at it. 

I sincerely wish you all the best for the future.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Ydars

I am really sorry that this has affected so many talented people. I think this industry is very brutal and takes no account of the sacrifices people have to make to work as RPG games designers. This makes the commitment of the people on that list, to this hobby, all the more inspiring.

I wish everyone who has got this hard news today the very best; now and in the future.


----------



## catsclaw227

Good luck to all those let go.  Tough times for all...

Dave, is it possible that some of these will be "rehired" as freelancers (designers, developers, editors) for future products?  I know in IT, many companies will layoff and then rehire some of the programmers as consultants so that they can use them in smaller and more focused efforts, saving money on things like Worker's Comp, Insurance, etc...


----------



## SteveC

I hope that some of the WotC folks will decide to come by and take a look at EnWorld once things die down. I want to offer my most sincere condolence at a layoff (especially at this time of year....) and wish you all the best.

The thing is, gaming is an important part of my life, and has been so for over 30 years, so in a very real way all of you have made my life better. I just wanted to say thanks for that.

Now I also want to point out that I give very good job references, I have a nearly 100% success rate for getting people new jobs based on my recommendations, so let me know if you need someone to say how awesome you all were! 

Best wishes,

--Steve


----------



## Jack99

WotC_Dave said:


> In my 10 years at Wizards... [snip]
> 
> Maybe I didn't say this enough when I was part of "the Man," but the ENWorld community is absolutely terrific. The level of discourse here continues to be top-notch, and there's always an interesting thread sitting right there, begging to be read. But if you're already a regular here, you've already figured that out, huh?
> 
> --David Noonan, who should probably get a new user name.




Thanks for all the great things you helped bring to us.

Cheers


----------



## Relique du Madde

Damn...


----------



## Riley

David (and all the others - I mean, Tweet, too - really?), I wish you all the best, and I hope you all land on your feet.

I also hope you find a place where you can continue to produce great game material for my enjoyment.


----------



## jinnetics

carmachu said:


> Isnt this the second set of layoffs since 4e was released?




Don't go connecting dots that aren't there. We know _nothing_. Everyone is laying people off right now. Everyone has to cut back, no matter how much it hurts.

I also send my regrets and hopes to those affected!


----------



## doctorhook

WotC_Dave said:


> Thanks for the kind words, folks. They mean a great deal. And my wife was reading over my shoulder, and they cheered her up _immensely_.
> 
> I can confirm the essential truth of what's been reported, and I am indeed one of the ones let go today. When you're in the midst of the process, you don't really get a sense of what's going on elsewhere in the building. Thus I didn't know some of the names until I read them here. They're quality people. In a weird way, I'm proud to be among them. (I'd rather be employed, sure, but you take the solace you can at a moment like this.)
> 
> I'll leave the prognosticating and "...but what does this MEAN?!?" stuff to others. I think the game is in good shape--and I think it's in good hands. In my 10 years at Wizards, I survived a lot of these layoffs--including cuts deeper than this. More to the point for you guys, the _game_ survived deeper cuts than this.
> 
> Maybe I didn't say this enough when I was part of "the Man," but the ENWorld community is absolutely terrific. The level of discourse here continues to be top-notch, and there's always an interesting thread sitting right there, begging to be read. But if you're already a regular here, you've already figured that out, huh?
> 
> --David Noonan, who should probably get a new user name.



Dave,

I tried to send you a PM on the Wizards boards this evening, but it told me your mailbox was full. Anyway, what I wanted to say was this:

Good luck in the future, Dave. Our thoughts and prayers go out to you and your family. May you have a Merry Christmas!

But more than anything else, I want to say that while you may thank us for the condolences, we thank you even more for all of the amazing work you've done, and for the fantastic products you've been involved with! You still have a lot of fans, Dave!

Sincerely,
 - Kyle (aka doctorhook)

PS: May we hope that this means we'll see you here at ENWorld more often now?


----------



## Ydars

Jinnetics is right; just remember, two dots always lie on a straight line, even if there is no relationship between the points


----------



## WesSchneider

Wow, thanks to Lisa for being johnny on the spot with that list, and super sorry to everyone on it - especially in this season. I'll not get too up in arms here even though there's some great friends and writers on there, but if we here on _Pathfinder _can help in any way just give us a yell.


----------



## Mike Selinker

WotC_Dave said:


> David Noonan, who should probably get a new user name.




I suggest "Noonan The Barbarian."

WotC's RPG side is quite a bit less skilled today than it was yesterday, since it no longer has your talents. Having left WotC voluntarily, I don't know quite what you're going through, Dave. But even if I can't empathize completely, I still have a full liquor cabinet in the basement, which you are more than welcome to help me deplete.

Mike


----------



## jeffh

Zaukrie said:


> I'm shocked not to see any names in the DDM line (though that my be down to one person).



Last I recall, that's where Tweet was.

For those of us who know the M:tG side of things, the biggest surprise is actually Randy, though I'd been feeling for a while that he'd been promoted to his level of incompetence and should have stayed in, or gone back to, M:tG development, where he was just excellent.


----------



## Mokona

All the best, Mr. Noonan.

Jonathan Tweet did a great job on *Dungeons & Dragons* 3rd edition.  He has also worked on _Ars Magica_, and other older roleplaying games (_Everway_?).

Randy was the man in charge of Gleemax, &c.  He tried to fix things up but I suspect that the huge failures in digital initiatives outside of DDI tripped him up and led to his departure.


----------



## Plane Sailing

Really sorry to hear the news, which particularly sucks at this time of year. I hope all you guys are able to find good new employment quickly.



WotC_Dave said:


> --David Noonan, who should probably get a new user name.




Dave - drop me an email or post in Meta and we can change your username to anything you like*. It's the least we can do 

*within reason

Cheers


----------



## Phaezen

Dave & the rest of the folks

My heartfelt condolences for your situation, I know from a similar experience it is not a fun place to be in.

May 2009 bring new, better, opportunities for all of you.

Phaezen


----------



## mhacdebhandia

This is terrible news. My heart goes out to all of you - I recognise half the names on the list, and I'm sure the other half did great work in places I just never saw.


----------



## wedgeski

Allow me also to pass on my best wishes to all those names in the list.

Dave, you were basically the face of 4E for me, and I really enjoyed your podcasts. You will be missed.


----------



## WhatGravitas

Wait... what? There pre-Christmas lay-offs... suck. And there are some really prominent names in it, which puzzles me even more.

Well, best wishes to all that were laid off. 

Cheers, LT.


----------



## vagabundo

Terrible news. All the best for you - all - and your families.


----------



## Quartz

Very best wishes to all those involved. Being unemployed bites.


----------



## PaulofCthulhu

My condolences and sympathies to those affected by the layoffs. Having been made redundant myself before Christmas, I can say it is no fun at all. "Death by Spreadsheet" can feel rather de-humanising. 

I hope all the best for those involved and that they are snapped up in new jobs soon!

Paul


----------



## jimtillman

Gundark said:


> it sucks...there are some big names there. Losing your job before christmas always sucks. I know from xp.




I have a buddy whose last job laid him off every year beginning of dec and rehired him end of every january.
some companies just work this way, I hope that the people laid off get new jobs quicly or get back in with wotk near future


----------



## Gotham Gamemaster

Best wishes to all those who were affected by the layoffs. As a fan, I considered Dave Noonan to be "the voice of Wizards" due to his excellent podcasts. In addition, he was always a pleasure to interact with at DDXP as well.  WotC will be the lesser without him.


----------



## avin

Terrible terrible news... hope you guys have the best luck.


----------



## Betote

It's always sad when people who work bringing fun to others suffer this kind of things 

I wish you all the best of lucks.


----------



## Klaus

Best of luck to all those who lost their jobs. Really crappy time for it.

But I have no doubt this will be a short-term thing for all of them.


----------



## diaglo

best of luck to the newly unemployed.


----------



## Henrix

This is terrible news, I hope it works out fine for everybody involved!

Dave, I'll miss you on the podcast, it's been a pleasure hearing you there!

And I hope to get a chance to buy more excellent games you guys make, because I know you can make them!

(I see some small hope that this means we'll see more game material by Jonathan Tweet  )


----------



## JeffB

My sympathies to all those involved- having been laid off recently myself, I totally understand the suckitude around the holidays. However, keeping a positive attitude is key. "Everything happens for a reason" is my motto.


----------



## Cpt_Micha

Seems like it's all DDI related.

DDI has been full of fail since it's inception. Talk about wasted potential. I mean really did anyone care for "pay for" designer blogs? I thought that was the third dumbest thing I've ever seen a company do. Okay maybe not third but certainly in the top 20 for gaming companies. (number one being Sega. Nuff Said) 

Don't we you know... get those for free anyway by frequenting forums?

DDI should have been for things like the Fey Feature, and the various ecologies that we got from Dungeon and Dragon. Not "Lets interview a Designer!"

Sucks for Solice, I liked Solice. She did a good job (sorta) of help mending the forums at wotc.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne

Herremann the Wise said:


> Is this a typical cleaning out? Does this reflect on the success (or lack of) of DDI, or D&D in general? What should (if anything) be read into this?




I don't know; there was a round of layoffs not terribly long after 3.0 came out - this was around the time Monte Cook and Sean K. Reynolds left, though I'm not sure if they were laid off per se.  There were two things going then, which match very closely with what's going on right now - a new edition of teh game had come out, and a recession hit.  It stands to reason that more people are needed to work on D&D while the design of a new edition is going on then to maintain that edition's forward momentum, and of course in an economic downturn the pressure on the bottom line is even greater.


----------



## delericho

Losing a job always sucks, losing a job just before Christmas doubly so.

I wish I coould say this was a surprise, but it really isn't. Between the new edition being out, the economy, and WotC's habit of making cuts at this time, this really wasn't unexpected.

I hope all those affected find new employment soon.


----------



## Sheridan

A _*toy*_ company that lays its workers off at the start of the _*Christmas*_ season...

...how utterly devoid of a soul Hasbro/Wizards must be...

Best of luck to Dave and all those affected (I found out about this while making plans for my upcoming d20 Past/Pulp Heroes game, Dave).

...and for goodness sake, let's not worry about "the state of the game".  If the company completely disappeared from the face of the Earth today, I'm still pretty sure we all still have enough "stuff" to keep on playing D&D for as long as we wish.

Best wishes to all those affected and a big "thank you" for all you've done.
*Sheridan


----------



## Brix

_Post deleted - not the right place for that kind of rant, thanks ~ PS_


----------



## Stormtower

As a fellow unemployed American, I'd like to offer my sympathy and condolences to all those laid off today.  Some of the names on that list are highly responsible for many, many hours of enjoyable gaming had by all at my table.  Best wishes to you, and stay positive.  Know that your work on D&D over the years is appreciated.  

PS. to Dave Noonan - great work on the podcasts and I will miss listening to your voice.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne

Brix said:


> Wasn't it part of the plan...




Ever wonder what a threadcrap was?  This is an excellent example.  Let's not have any more in this thread, k?

-Kid Charlemagne, ENWorld Mod


----------



## silentounce

Sheridan said:


> A _*toy*_ company that lays its workers off at the start of the _*Christmas*_ season...
> 
> ...how utterly devoid of a soul Hasbro/Wizards must be...




Actually, would you rather have them WORK through the holidays and then lay them off?  That sounds a bit more cruel doesn't it?  Almost like they used them and then let them go.  I'm sure they're all getting some kind of severance or being allowed to use their saved up vacation time.  At least this way they get to spend the holidays with their family/friends.  That, and there is never a "good time" for a layoff.  Perhaps if they kept all these people for another month or two it could result in more layoffs because of budget overruns?  Keeping them around through the holidays does no one a favor.  So, before you start judging and saying careless remarks....

Now that that is out of the way, I give my best wishes to those out of work this holiday season.  I work in recruitment, and let me tell you, it's getting very rough out there for everybody in nearly every industry.

One more thing, I vote for no new editions of D&D.  Just look at the history.  Release of 2 ed(1989) followed by the early '90s recession, 3.0(2000) came out followed by the burst of the dotcom bubble and the last recession, and now 4th ed comes out leading to the current economic crisis/recession.  Last three recessions coincide with last three editions of D&D?  Just like the drop in pirates and the increase in global warming, it can't be a coincidence.  And now with the rise in piracy we're all hearing about in the news weather forecasters are saying that it's going to be a very cold, harsh winter?








Hope maybe I cheered someone up with that.


----------



## Drkfathr1

Always terrible news to hear of more lay-offs, regardless of the reason. I hate to see this during the holiday season too, I wish companies had a better way of doing this, but I understand why it seems to happen at this time of year. 

Best wishes to all affected. Hopefully new jobs won't be long in coming, I'd say they all have the kind of talent that others will be looking for.


----------



## TerraDave

These have become so predictable they are painfull. 

Though the fact that this is the second round, and mongoose mats recent anouncements, would seem to imply that while 4E is going _well_, it could be doing _better_. 

Randy Buehler was, with 20/20 hindsight, clearly the wrong man in the wrong job. I very much hope he can find a position which better uses his talents. 

Jonathan Tweet, largely the father of "d20" and hence the biggest force in RPGs for almost 10 years, may have been hurt by the demise of Dreamblade. Still his long association with Wizards makes this almost shocking. (except for my first point). It also removes the last person at WotC who had a significant role in creating 3E. 

And there is David Noonan. Practically the face of D&D R&D, who did some very good 3E work, and was heavily involved in developing 4E (though his credit for it seemed limited). What can you say?

I do hope things work out for them. The timing is terrible. But things usually do.


----------



## Raven Crowking

My condolences as well.  Here's to speedy reemployment in a job you enjoy.


RC


----------



## xechnao

Bad. Hope things sort out for the better ASAP.


----------



## Angellis_ater

My best wishes for the future for all of those laid off. I hope to one day be able to work side to side with many of you, and you've been inspirations for me and those like me who strive to design for a living.

Take care!


----------



## Verys Arkon

I'm sad to see so many titans let go, especially this time of year.  Like everyone else here, I hope they find new positions soon.

I'll especially miss Dave Noonan - his pre-4e blogs really got me excited for 4e, and the podcasts with Mearls were something I always looked forward to.  I hope Martial Power wont be the last book with his name on it.

I thought the DDI had finally hit its stride.  The magazines were being released with quality material and on time, the communication had improved immensly, and the software was coming along it seemed.  I hope such a dramatic upheaval doesn't derail all their progress.

Good luck in the future, and I hope to see your work again soon.

Verys


----------



## dmccoy1693

Good luck to you all.  May you roll a 20 on your future interviews and may your interviewers all be 1st level commoners (so bring house cats).


----------



## Zinovia

My condolences to all those who were recently laid off.  I was shocked to see some of the names on that list.  I hope you all manage to find some new great jobs soon (or as soon as you want to go back to work!).  

Thank you for the innumerable hours of enjoyment I have spent playing D&D (3.0, 3.5 and 4E) with my friends.  My husband and I had given up on D&D after 1st ed, but the great work done by Jonathan and the rest of the 3E team brought us back to the game after many years.  Then 4E came out just as we were wrapping up our 6 year long 3.5 game, and I'm playing two 4E campaigns now and loving it. 

Dave, thanks for all your work on 4E and for the great podcasts.  I enjoyed listening to them and was always happy to see a new episode come out.  If you are interested in continuing with a gaming podcast, I really think there's room out there for one that talks about 4E (given the apparent podfade of Radio Free Hommlet  ).  Or talk about whatever you like - I'd subscribe! 

I'm sorry that so many talented people were hit by this layoff.  Know that we do appreciate all the hard work you put in on our favorite games.


----------



## lexoanvil

wow i don't know how to feel about this. i cant get enough of your podcast and other game content dave. i hope things work out for you and anyone else on this list.


----------



## Rugult

Dave,

As many people have already commented on here; I hope everything works out well for you and that you have a merry Xmas.

About the layoffs; I would just tell people not to come to any sudden conclusions.  Every company nowadays is cutting back to the economy, and I doubt WotC is any different.  If these were related to a deeper problem, then I'd guess we'd see a bit more then layoffs in the next few months...


----------



## Admiral Caine

My condolences to the whole lot of them.

There's been a few comments about Randy Buehler. I never knew of him from any place but DDInsider. However I wanted to say that once he relaunched the DDI project with his weekly Wednesday columns, I felt a lot more confident about the direction DDI was going in.

I liked him, and I didn't have any baggage coming in with me when I made that assessment. The last few months of DDI have seemed better and stronger, and I was getting hopeful. I credit Randy Buehler for that, right or for wrong.

Getting laid off is hard on anybody. Most people take a job hoping to do well at it.

My best wishes to all of them during this time.


----------



## Piratecat

Major layoffs during the 3e era created some award-winning game companies: Green Ronin, Malhavoc Games, and quite a few more. I can only hope that layoffs during the 4e era do the same.

23 folks were laid off, I believe. Painful.


----------



## Princesskeyblade

My condolences to all who was laid off. That sucks. 

Here's to hoping that you don't stay unemployed too long!


----------



## Melba Toast

Sheridan said:


> A _*toy*_ company that lays its workers off at the start of the _*Christmas*_ season...
> 
> ...how utterly devoid of a soul Hasbro/Wizards must be...
> 
> *Sheridan




The worst part is: they couldn't even wait until Friday afternoon to do it!


----------



## CleverNickName

Piratecat said:


> Major layoffs during the 3e era created some award-winning game companies: Green Ronin, Malhavoc Games, and quite a few more. I can only hope that layoffs during the 4e era do the same.



Indeed...I don't think we have seen the last of these brilliant designers.


----------



## jgbrowning

Melba Toast said:


> The worst part is: they couldn't even wait until Friday afternoon to do it!




It's become fairly standard to do layoffs and firings mid-week.

I wish those affected by the recent layoff the best of luck and hope to once again  see their names on products I enjoy.

joe b.


----------



## xechnao

Piratecat said:


> 23 folks were laid off




How many people does Wotc employ? I have no true idea but this seems like a big part of their staff regarding the image I have had.


----------



## Mokona

xechnao said:


> How many people does Wotc employ?



I believe it is somewhere around 300 people work at *Wizards of the Coast* in Renton, Washington, USA. Maybe as few as 250.


----------



## Admiral Caine

Does anybody know if Cort Odekirk was among those that were laid off?


----------



## Knight Otu

Crap. My condolences to all those affected.



xechnao said:


> How many people does Wotc employ? I have no true idea but this seems like a big part of their staff regarding the image I have had.



Wizards is in this building, occupying two floors and part of a third. 23 is probably quite a bit, but I guess it isn't quite the blow you thought it was.


----------



## Thieran

I remember Julia Martin for her excellent "Faiths & Avatars" sourcebook.

My condolences to all those who are affected!


----------



## Michele Carter

Thieran said:


> I remember Julia Martin for her excellent "Faiths & Avatars" sourcebook.




That, and many other things. 

If I may: Take a moment, and look through your stack of D&D game books for the last *seventeen years,* particularly the _Forgotten Realms_ products. Pick out your favorites. And then look at the credits page where you rarely go, and read the editors' names. Julia's will be there more often than not.

She is one of the most experienced and dedicated editors I know, and she will be sorely missed.


----------



## Piratecat

WotC_Miko said:


> If I may: Take a moment, and look through your stack of D&D game books for the last *seventeen years,* particularly the _Forgotten Realms_ products. Pick out your favorites. And then look at the credits page where you rarely go, and read the editors' names. Julia's will be there more often than not.
> 
> She is one of the most experienced and dedicated editors I know, and she will be sorely missed.



A few years ago I joked to Michelle that I was an editing fanboy; editing usually is the deciding factor in whether I enjoy reading a book or not, and the editor is usually an unsung hero in a book's success. I'm really going to miss Julia.


----------



## TerraDave

Admiral Caine said:


> There's been a few comments about Randy Buehler. I never knew of him from any place but DDInsider. However I wanted to say that once he relaunched the DDI project with his weekly Wednesday columns, I felt a lot more confident about the direction DDI was going in.
> 
> I liked him, and I didn't have any baggage coming in with me when I made that assessment. The last few months of DDI have seemed better and stronger, and I was getting hopeful. I credit Randy Buehler for that, right or for wrong.




There is no question it is better. But the early days, were pretty rough.


----------



## Markustay

Very sad news indeed.

My heart goes out to the folks (and their families) who have lost their livelihoods, because of poor decisions made by others.


----------



## Traycor

God bless all those affected.


----------



## The Little Raven

I was expecting an announcement like this soon, but some of the names on the list astound me. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

David Noonan, Julia Martin, Stacy Longstreet... Jonathon Tweet(!), an icon. Wow. Just wow. That'd be like White Wolf announcing that Ethan Skemp was getting the boot.

I've got tons of respect for the rest of the team still soldiering on, but this is definitely the end of an era, and I feel sad to have seen it come.


----------



## JVisgaitis

Wow does this suck.  I loved listening to Dave on the D&D Podcast. I couldn't imagine being laid off at a time like this. And the people on that list is insane! Best of luck to everyone in finding a new job.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman

Piratecat said:


> Major layoffs during the 3e era created some award-winning game companies: Green Ronin, Malhavoc Games, and quite a few more. I can only hope that layoffs during the 4e era do the same.
> 
> 23 folks were laid off, I believe. Painful.




Wise words from the Kitty. Put those names together and think what they might produce as a solo team, unfettered by corporate constraints! 

Best wishes to all those that were laid off today.


----------



## Admiral Caine

TerraDave said:


> There is no question it is better. But the early days, were pretty rough.





I accept that then, in the spirit that things were improving.

My hope is that DDI doesn't suffer a setback because of the layoffs/restructuring.


----------



## Mark

WotC has traditionally laid off a number of people, including designers, at Christmastime after a new edition is released.  However, when a new edition is no longer a single release, or three books in quick succession at the beginning of an edition's 3-4 year cycle, but rather what is meant to be the core rules are spread out in releases over two or three years, particularly when a game is so dependent on balance issues, then the company has to rely on a smaller design and editing team to ensure quality.  Once we get beyond a few that are completely in the pipeline, I wonder what fans will be saying about the various releases?


----------



## xechnao

Knight Otu said:


> but I guess it isn't quite the blow you thought it was.




Half of what I had thought. Nevertheless it is still a significant number. The strange thing is that it sounds like veterans and senior staff was hit. It seems there are some strange working relations in this industry. I guess they benefit from the fact that it is hard to make money out of the hobby while they think there is enough of talent around, ready to be assumed as needed. Perhaps it is also true. Besides they are not after the next big thing. And perhaps they will even be hiring next time for less money. 
Another suspicion that adds to my belief that the hobby needs to grow more in indie/self publishing.


----------



## herald

Hmm the D&D web site went down. That's a coincidence. Hope there is enought web folks to fix it.


----------



## Derulbaskul

Best wishes to all those who were affected. This is one of the things I really dislike about American business: layoffs are far too frequent (quick to hire and quick to fire).

A special shout-out to Julia Martin because it was her _Faiths & Avatars _ that brought me back to gaming and to D&D.  I still consider that one of the greatest RPG products of all time and if the face of Helen of Troy could launch a thousand ships, F&A is a book that could launch or inspire a thousand campaigns.

I didn't follow much of the furore surrounding the DDi when it first began because I wasn't interested in 4E but it was the quality and utility of the Compendium that convinced me that it was time to try 4E. Maybe the team responsible dropped the ball to begin with but I am very happy with the end result.

Best to all.


----------



## Monte At Home

Piratecat said:


> Major layoffs during the 3e era created some award-winning game companies: Green Ronin, Malhavoc Games, and quite a few more. I can only hope that layoffs during the 4e era do the same.




While I appreciate the good intent, I'm not sure how one might credit layoffs with the creation of Malhavoc Press. Neither Sue nor I were laid off, nor was our first major freelancer (Bruce Cordell). I suppose later on we used the talents of Sean Reynolds and Skip Williams, but we'd been around for a while at that point. I suppose you could say that some of the layoffs were indicative of the kinds of large changes that occurred at WotC which convinced me it was no longer a place I wanted to work at.

Not that I have any illusions about what would have happened had I stayed. I've no doubt that I would have been laid off. From a larger perspective than just yesterday, it's become clear that WotC's become a company that not only doesn't value experience, it avoids it. (And looks at least somewhat disdainfully, rather than fondly, upon its own past.) You have to stretch your definition of "old guard" to even apply to anyone there anymore. (This is likely a bottom line issue, since the longer you stay, the more you get paid.) When I was there, I worked among people like Skip Williams and Jeff Grubb--with that kind of perspective at hand, I was always the new guy. Which was fine by me. I had much to learn and always appreciated the perspective they could provide. Now, most of the people working on D&D weren't even there when I was there. That's how much turnover and change there's been. There's a real danger of losing continuity with these kinds of layoffs. Dangers involving making old mistakes and not remembering what was learned in old lessons.  

It's a foolish and shortsighted management that lets people like Jonathan, Julia, and Dave go. Foolish. And a cold-hearted one that does it at Christmas. But this is not new outrage, it's old, tired outrage. This is the company that laid off Skip, and Jeff, and Sean, and other people of extraordinary talent and experience. It's par for the recent course.

Before I end this bitter ramble, let me just add that it's hard not to laugh at the shocking and perhaps pitiable ineptitude of a company that makes role playing games that would lay off Jonathan Tweet, very likely the best rpg designer, well, period. 

I wish all of them the best, and have not a shred of doubt that they'll all go on to do bigger and better things.


----------



## xechnao

Knight Otu said:


> Wizards is in this building, occupying two floors and part of a third. 23 is probably quite a bit, but I guess it isn't quite the blow you thought it was.




Well someone at rpg.net seems to align more with the impression I have had.
He speaks for a staff of 100
RPGnet Forums - View Single Post - Layoffs at Wizards of the Coast


----------



## balard

Man! Dave Noonan!  that's sad. He and JoT were my favorite designers and poster from WotC. I really hope for all the best for then. Can believe they fired Noonan and Tweet...

And Randy, I really like him and all, but WotC is know by his crap digital products. Sorry, I'm a Magic players and a user of magic online, had great hopes for the digital table, but by playing MOL since the V2 I never really got to exited by any of theirs promises. I really expected him to be kicked of anyway. Hope they can fetch his talents back as a developer for magic. He is good at it.

To all of then, my best wishes and all the luck they can get. Hope to see their writing soon.

At least Mearls are still there...


----------



## The Ghost

Best wishes to those who have lost their jobs. 

Given the current economic downturn and the names let go by WotC - this looks to be a purely bottom line decision. And that is sad because they are loosing A LOT of talent.


----------



## Mokona

I heard of some more layoffs, not sure:

Barry Holldorf (Dir. of Facilities and Business Services)
Ian Wilkinson (Director of Operations)
Nate Heiss

It looks like a lot of the layoffs were at the Director level making *Wizards of the Coast* less top heavy with management positions.  Also they can save more cash with highly paid director layoffs than line workers thus laying off fewer total people to reach their budget savings.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII

Wow.  Haven't posted here in a while.  I'm very sorry to hear about this round of layoffs, but I'm particularly sad to see Dave Noonan and Jonathan Tweet go.  Those guys do great work, and Wizards needs more designers like them.


----------



## Simplicity

That's a pretty sad list.  You have to look pretty hard these days to find a company that isn't laying people off.  While I feel it's a long-term mistake for Wizards to be letting these people go, the economy is not what it was.  WotC needs to control costs right now.  They could very easily employ fewer people and/or stretch out their releases more.  4e releases have been rather breakneck.

The DnDInsider layoffs annoy me in that I felt that *for once* Wizards had finally released a successful app (the compendium) and were about to follow it up with another (the character builder).  That was a lot of effort for them.  Not to mention that the magazines were actually starting to turn people around with their quality content.  How many potential subscribers will be lost now that people question whether the magazines are going to persist for a year?


----------



## dnddays

Noonan was top notch, I think letting him go was a mistake.  Player's Handbook II for 3e was an incredible book.  Randy Buehler, on the other hand, had to go.  That guy has been running Magic into the ground for years.


----------



## Filcher

xechnao said:


> Well someone at rpg.net seems to align more with the impression I have had.
> He speaks for a staff of 100
> RPGnet Forums - View Single Post - Layoffs at Wizards of the Coast




Industry email list calls their staff directory at 400+. I don't know one way or the other. Drader, do you trust the numbers?


----------



## Darrin Drader

Filcher said:


> Industry email list calls their staff directory at 400+. I don't know one way or the other. Drader, do you trust the numbers?




I've been too far removed for too long to be overly helpful in this regard. My assumption was that headcount had been trending down for the past few years and that it was much lower than 400, but it's entirely possible that I'm completely wrong.

I'd also just like to thank Monte for sharing his perspective, with which I happen to fully agree.


----------



## Daniel D. Fox

From other writers at Wizards I've spoken to, promotion is a death sentence. And since experience in the industry typically leads to a directorial position...it speaks miles of where WotC seems themselves as a company. 

I know these are hard financial times, and I am sure it was a hard decision to make. Yet let history speak for itself. As a consumer, I'll speak with my pocketbook in 2009 when it comes time to renew my DDI subscription and during the Christmas season when it comes to gifting WotC products to friends. Disappointed doesn't begin to describe how I feel right now about my favorite gaming company, especially in lieu of the holiday season.


----------



## El Mahdi

My condolences to those let go.  I sincerely hope this isn't the last time we see your names on RPG products.  If and when you guys get work (whether freelancing for WoTC or 3pp), and I see your names on the products, I'll know they are top-notch and support you with buying them.  Take care of yourselves and we'll hope to see you all around the boards.


----------



## Lorion

"Hello and welcome to the D&D podcast. I'm David Noonan..."


----------



## redsnowdude

Today makes me sad that WOTC is so financially driven that they would layoff solid game designers.  I know it isn't a new practice, but it is definately a stupid one.  I won't  renew my DDI subscription.


----------



## Carteeg_Struve

As much as my own opinions for WotC has deteriorated over the last 20 months, I have to grind my teeth over the firings, especially considering the timing.

"Here's your Christmas bonus!"
"It's a pink slip..."
"MERRY CHRISTMAS!"

I hope the talent that has left or been booted from WotC continues to make great products either with other companies, new companies, or heck... if they gang together under a new name. Either way, I'm sure somebody somewhere will jump on these guys.

"And the 2009 first round draft pick for Paizo is... Jonathan Tweet!"


Good luck to everyone. I hope they do well.



Oh. And I nominate the following as "Sig-Worthy Comment of the Year" (that's an Ennie award.. right?):


			
				Monte At Home said:
			
		

> "it's become clear that WotC's become a company that not only doesn't value experience, it avoids it."


----------



## Foxman

I just want to say thank you for all the hard work to those who were laid and my best wishes this christmas season. Sadly I can't think of anything else to add that isnt pretty much a me-too of an above post...


----------



## RichGreen

Really sorry to hear about this. The D&D podcast won't be the same without Dave Noonan!


Richard


----------



## The Little Raven

Monte At Home said:


> You have to stretch your definition of "old guard" to even apply to anyone there anymore.




What is the definition of "old guard" you're using? Why wouldn't it apply to people like Rich Baker and Bill Slavicsek, who predate most of the people laid off since 2000? Why would it include David Noonan, but not Andy Collins (who has been there about as long)?


----------



## Fifth Element

The Little Raven said:


> What is the definition of "old guard" you're using? Why wouldn't it apply to people like Rich Baker and Bill Slavicsek, who predate most of the people laid off since 2000? Why would it include David Noonan, but not Andy Collins (who has been there about as long)?



Isn't Kim Mohan still there as well?


----------



## Snotlord

This is saddening news indeed, good luck to good folks currently without a job. I hope you all land on your feet.


----------



## Monte At Home

The Little Raven said:


> What is the definition of "old guard" you're using? Why wouldn't it apply to people like Rich Baker and Bill Slavicsek, who predate most of the people laid off since 2000? Why would it include David Noonan, but not Andy Collins (who has been there about as long)?




If you look just two sentences before the one you quoted, you'll see that I was referring to a larger perspective than just yesterday's layoffs. Dave wasn't old guard by anyone's definition (that's no slight against him). From my point of view, old guard is Skip Williams, Penny Williams, Jeff Grubb, Steve Winter, and John Pickens (all but one of which has been laid off by the company). And those are just the people who made the move to WotC. My definition also includes people like Zeb Cook, Paul Jacquays, Dave Sutherland, and Doug Niles, whom I was fortunate enough to work with at TSR. And even with all that, it's still a young perspective.

Bill and Rich started at TSR not all that long before I did. Thus, stretching the definition, as I said, because it would then have to also include me. Which seems silly. Not in a "ooh, I'm getting old sort of way," but a "wow, there's hardly anyone here who remembers working on 2nd edition, let alone 1st" sort of way.


----------



## occam

redsnowdude said:


> Today makes me sad that WOTC is so financially driven that they would layoff solid game designers.  I know it isn't a new practice, but it is definately a stupid one.  I won't  renew my DDI subscription.




Yeah, that'll show 'em. Maybe they'll lose so much money as a result of fan reaction, they can lay off more people!

If you like what DDI gives you, buy it. If you don't, don't. But don't think you'll be punishing WotC for these layoffs by withholding your money.

My condolences to all who lost their jobs today. I hope we'll still be seeing you around somewhere.


----------



## Darkwolf71

RichGreen said:


> Really sorry to hear about this. The D&D podcast won't be the same without Dave Noonan!
> 
> 
> Richard




You assume that there will _be_ a D&D podcast without Dave Noonan. Of course, I'm not saying there won't be, just that it's possible that they might scrap the feature as a whole.


----------



## DaveMage

Carteeg_Struve said:


> Oh. And I nominate the following as "Sig-Worthy Comment of the Year" (that's an Ennie award.. right?):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monte At Home said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "it's become clear that WotC's become a company that not only doesn't value experience, it avoids it."
Click to expand...



It's the Circuit City model - how's that working out for them, eh?


----------



## Brown Jenkin

Carteeg_Struve said:


> "And the 2009 first round draft pick for Paizo is... Jonathan Tweet!"




Wouldn't that be more of picking him up off of waivers?

Best of luck on the waiver wire to everyone.


----------



## Brown Jenkin

occam said:


> Yeah, that'll show 'em. Maybe they'll lose so much money as a result of fan reaction, they can lay off more people!
> 
> If you like what DDI gives you, buy it. If you don't, don't. But don't think you'll be punishing WotC for these layoffs by withholding your money.




So how do we punish them? Should we spend more money on their products, because that seems more like a reward.


----------



## Dracorat

This could be great actually.

Do you really think their exit from the company is an exit from the industry?

Maybe some shackles just got removed...


----------



## RichGreen

Darkwolf71 said:


> You assume that there will _be_ a D&D podcast without Dave Noonan. Of course, I'm not saying there won't be, just that it's possible that they might scrap the feature as a whole.



Fair point. It would be a shame for it to go though.


----------



## Umbran

Monte At Home said:


> From a larger perspective than just yesterday, it's become clear that WotC's become a company that not only doesn't value experience, it avoids it.




No offense, Monte, but I think perhaps you underestimate the impact of current economic events on business.


----------



## Zaukrie

It's cold. It's heartless. But, I gotta say, publicly held companies are not supposed to be "hearted". They are obligated to do what is in the best interest of stock price, basically (that is a simplification).

Also, all of you voting with your pocketbook over this, what do you eat, drive, insure yourself with, what government services do you use, basically, how do you do anything if you don't buy from companies that lay off good people?

I frankly don't agree with their style. I think it is stupid, in the long run, to lay off the people that know the company and the history and what works and what doesn't. OTOH, it is also stupid to lay off all the new people, with new ideas, and a new perspective. Leading a company and making these types of decisions isn't easy, nor is it fun.

I feel terrible for the people that just lost their jobs. They've given me years of fun (or in some cases, for the newer D&D people, confidence things were getting better). Good luck to everyone in this situation.


----------



## Obryn

Umbran said:


> No offense, Monte, but I think perhaps you underestimate the impact of current economic events on business.



In fairness, he's seen a lot of his friends and associates get the axe at WotC while they were doing a good job.

I mean, I agree in theory - the current economic climate means that businesses need to cut as many costs as possible as soon as possible - but I can understand a little bit of disillusionment.

-O


----------



## Friadoc

While I am not an expert, in any stretch of the imagination, with respects to the economy, I have experienced two surprise layoffs in the past 3-4 years, with the first coming while at HP, back in April '05, and again at Micron, back in June '07, and then a contract not being renewed in April of this year. So, I figured that I would share some of my experience with those who have just been laid off from WotC, so that they can avoid some of my own pitfalls in this experience.

First off, if you can avoid it, at all, do not let yourself become mired down in the bog of feeling downtrodden, because it is, very much, hard to get out of that thing. Layoffs suck, big time, but it is better than having been fired, because fired often means they had ground to do so, thus they can deny you various state benefits. Laid off, though, means you qualify instantly for various benefits, programs, and what not. So, if possibly, maintain some forward momentum, or plan for it. While it is the holidays and it sucks to be laid of at the gate of Christmas, plan around it and try and keep the focus forward.

Second, either make a trip to the Washington State Employment Security Department, or hit their website, and apply, immediately, for your benefits, even if you do not feel you need them just yet. You have paid into it and it is your right to access it, guilt free. Too often have I seen folk who feel bad or dirty for accepting unemployment benefits, do not be that person. You and your HR footprint paid for all of those benefits, for years the rollover from which has gone into the state's coffers and I doubt they felt guilty about it, so you should not, either. Think of it as a conditional security account or savings account that not only gives you monies, but access to very useful programs, aides, and assistance. You are not on the state's dole, regardless of what some folks say, as you are simply accessing the money that you, yourself, put into the system via working for an employer.

If any advice I give is important, it is, very much, those first two items, as they are the ones that can hurt you the worse, be it through becoming mired down under the feeling of losing your job and the trend toward depression and inaction, or the missing out on monies and programs that could have helped you out, a lot. I messed up on the second one, recently, and I missed out on the chance to drastically affect where I am at now, as I am still unemployed, and because I was not proactive in my acceptance of programs and monies, I lost out on a timed benefit that could have had me in a much better place, with respect to future education and career options, simply by feeling guilty about accessing my benefits cache.

Do not be me, seriously. It is there as part of the assurances given to the American worker, regardless of what some political ideologues and mavens might want us to think, via various sound bites.

Third, avoid slashing perks immediately, as it can put you in a feeling of being destitute when you are not. Now I am not advising you to go to the spa, daily, or live beyond your means with extravagancies, but still rent or go to the movies, buy an entertainment product, eat guilt foods, and so forth. While it can stretch your dollar out vastly to jump on the "tightening of our belts" train of thought, it can also cause a person to feel worse off than they really are. Some level of creature comforts being maintained is a good thing, it helps with the morale, big time. Heck, the monthly Paizo care package I get has done more for me than stretching my dollar ever could. It is silly, I know, but sometimes silly helps.

Lastly, do not bottle things up, at all. Vent to friends and family, if they would hear it, even if the venting is to a private list that no one else will ever hear, as it helps, a lot. I know, for a fact, that if it was not for my Friend's list on my LiveJournal, this past two years, or so, would have been unbearably depressing. Commiserating can be a goodly thing right now, as it lets the deep feelings blow out and gives you a sense of not being alone, even if, like some of us, you are.

It is the end of a job, not the end of the world, and a lot of you are more wanted and talented folk than I, so you should be just fine. Seriously, all it takes is some stalwartness, positive thought, plans, and good friends to make it through this, even if you have to retreat to a small town in Southern Oregon.

Okay, that last bit is me and although it is a nice town, you really don't need to be me, even if it would populate my gaming table with some good folks. 

Best wishes, thoughts, and hopes to you and yours during the most recent unpleasantness.


----------



## Zaruthustran

Layoffs suck, but let's not make this into more than it is. Turnover and new talent is generally healthy for a company, particularly for companies that depend on new ideas and innovation.

If TSR/WotC had never hired new talent, we wouldn't have had the products we've enjoyed over the years. Think about it: Tweet, Noonan, and even Monte were all new hires at some point. And as others have said, we as game consumers have also benefited from WotC departures (voluntary or involuntary): Green Ronin, Malhavoc, Privateer Press, etc.  

Again: layoffs SUCK. They just do. And this particular round caught a lot of quality people. But let's not compound the suckiness by drawing sensational conclusions from what is simply a normal business practice.


----------



## JDragon

Very sorry to hear about the layoffs.  Its never a good thing, but it really sucks this time of year.  Having been though it myself.

Also, gotta say I agree with Monte 100% as well.

JD


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes

Wow, Johnathan Tweet is like, my RPG Hero.  And I've come to associate David Noonan's name with the better 3E products.

I have to say, in my opinion the people who made 3E great are all gone from WoTC now.  If I was more invested in 4E I'd be worried.  Fortunately, I have enough unused 3E stuff to last me for at least the next decade!

For that, I'd like to thank all the former WoTC staffers out there.  Monte, Skip, John, Sean -- here's to you!

Ken


----------



## Friadoc

Umbran said:


> No offense, Monte, but I think perhaps you underestimate the impact of current economic events on business.




While there could be some underestimation there, I think there is also a track record on WotC's part, too, with respect of layoffs and their timing. Without knowing all the inner workings of things, what I am about to posit is nothing more than speculation and assumption, as well as baseless conjecture, but was the choice to simply cut folk, or was their thought given to across the board reductions and cuts?

Odds are it was just a choice to cut some of the more experienced folk, with longtime in, since it not only gets ride of a modest salary/wage, but also their HR footprint, too. Generally, depending on the company, you can take an employee's earnings and double it, sometimes triple it, and you get the idea of their total HR footprint, with the exception of executives, as those folk do not always make as much sense, with respect to awards, incentives, and pay.

There use to be a day when companies would do across the board paycuts, so as to help with the bottom line, but those days are further and further in the past, compared to today.

While I am sure the current economy had some impact, I am also pretty sure that this is more of a yearly thing, too. Perhaps a handful of names might not have been on the list, had the economy not tanked, continued to tank, over the past couple of years, but I think it still would have happened, to a degree, sadly.


----------



## gribble

First, I just want to give my condolences and best wishes to those laid off. 



Zaruthustran said:


> But let's not compound the suckiness by drawing sensational conclusions from what is simply a normal business practice.




Second, I have to disagree with this one. Mass hiring/layoff of staff is not normal business practice by any stretch of the imagination. A well run business will have a good handle on both it's current and future work, and maintain a level of staff which is sufficient to meet that work, given normal staff turnover. Temporary spikes should (for the most part) be able to be met by tightening the belt in other areas, dipping into cash reserves, or utilising temporary (contract) staff. Sure, unexpected events can happen (although in the better run companies even a lot of these "unexpected" events can be forecast or at least catered for), but IMO any company that regularly goes through these boom and bust cycles is poorly run.

Does this necessarily mean doom and gloom? No, but lets not put our heads in the sand and pretend this is just part of the normal day-to-day activities of a well run company... at the very least WotC seems to have some very shoddy senior management.


----------



## RefinedBean

Just a quick note:  Although layoffs always suck at this time of year, they're definitely nothing new for WotC or, well, the rest of America.  Budgets turn over in December/January for many companies, thus necessitating layoffs and other cost-cutting procedures.

We also don't know whether or not WotC is giving their former staff full holiday bonuses.

And as Umbran wisely mentioned, the economy is a big factor.  Everyone's hurting, and unfortunately bad things happen to good people.

Thankfully, gaming as an industry is tight-knit.  We help our own how we can.  Plenty of other people are getting laid off that aren't receiving comfort and kind words from thousands of fans worldwide.  

Not calling anyone out or anything, but let's all keep perspective, hrm?


----------



## FreeXenon

Wow! Totally teh Suxors! 

I am surprised to see Dave and John go. The others I am not familiar with. I wish all of you good luck and hopefully you will still have a great holiday.


----------



## RefinedBean

gribble said:


> Does this necessarily mean doom and gloom? No, but lets not put our heads in the sand and pretend this is just part of the normal day-to-day activities of a well run company... at the very least WotC seems to have some very shoddy senior management.




It's not "putting our heads in the sand."  It's saying that since we don't work there and have no clue what's been going on with the company financially or otherwise, we shouldn't make any conclusions that we can't back up.

Conclusions like "...at the very least WotC seems to have some very shoddy senior management."  This statement doesn't help anyone, and just fuels a fire that shouldn't have been lit in the first place.


----------



## Fifth Element

gribble said:


> Mass hiring/layoff of staff is not normal business practice by any stretch of the imagination. A well run business will have a good handle on both it's current and future work, and maintain a level of staff which is sufficient to meet that work, given normal staff turnover.



It's not necessarily that simple. To use an extreme example, I'm sure H&R Block hires a pile of people in December/January, and lays off a pile of people in May. Every year. Some businesses do not need a constant staffing level.

Developing a new edition requires far more work than a regular publishing schedule. Layoffs are de rigueur shortly after a new edition release, because staff was built up beforehand to develop the new edition.

I just think it's simplistic to suggest that a "well-run business" should not have layoffs. It's more complicated than that.


----------



## gribble

RefinedBean said:


> This statement doesn't help anyone, and just fuels a fire that shouldn't have been lit in the first place.




Sorry, not meaning to inflame anything. I just wanted to point out that saying "it's normal business practice, and to be expected given the economic climate" doesn't really excuse it as far as I'm concerned.

Maybe I'll turn it around and put it another way: I'm glad I work for a well run company, with excellent senior management who saw the financial crisis coming and tightened their belts early. Now, despite the downturn, it's unlikely we're going to have to make any layoffs (and, in fact, we've been able to make a big christmas donation to a couple of local children's hospitals). My best wishes go out to those who aren't so fortunate.


----------



## mlund

Here's just hoping the folks that have been let go received good severance packages. That makes all the difference between a brutal firing for Christmas and getting to spend the holidays with your family while making a job transition.

I'm not really shocked though. Changes need to be in place with the first quarter of 2009 starts. Businesses, products, and workers compete earnestly to continue to advance the marketplace. The only way that competition is truly earnest is if there are lay-offs, terminations of product lines, and even failures of entire companies. That's how change that leads to long-term progress usually happens. It shouldn't be personal, except in helping the individual employee make a smooth transition into the next stage of his or her career.

- Marty Lund


----------



## RefinedBean

gribble said:


> Sorry, not meaning to inflame anything. I just wanted to point out that saying "it's normal business practice, and to be expected given the economic climate" doesn't really excuse it as far as I'm concerned.




's cool, buddy.  It would be nice to know the full story, and I'm sure we'll have a better idea of what went down after a few months.  As Fifth Element mentioned, though, sometimes companies have to do what they must.

Also, good on your company for the charitable donations and belt-tightening.


----------



## gribble

Fifth Element said:


> I just think it's simplistic to suggest that a "well-run business" should not have layoffs. It's more complicated than that.



Actually, that's _exactly_ my point. I'm pretty sure that H&R Block don't hire and then lay off a large number of permanent staff, if that's their business model. They'd use seasonal or short-term staff for their busy period (if they're sensible). 

Trust me, I understand - I work in computer software, and in our business it's par for the course to have big spikes due to product releases. A well run business will meet those spikes by using contract staff. You could say it's all in semantics, but at least with contract staff there is an understanding by both parties that the employment is only short term (often only for a specific project).


----------



## Fifth Element

gribble said:


> I'm glad I work for a well run company, with excellent senior management who saw the financial crisis coming and tightened their belts early. Now, despite the downturn, it's unlikely we're going to have to make any layoffs (and, in fact, we've been able to make a big christmas donation to a couple of local children's hospitals).



What you're missing is that these layoffs are likely not 100% due to the economic conditions. Historically, new edition releases have been followed by layoffs. They are probably greater due to the economy, but it's very simplistic to assume these layoffs could have been avoided if the company was "well run".


----------



## Mike Selinker

Monte At Home said:


> let me just add that it's hard not to laugh at the shocking and perhaps pitiable ineptitude of a company that makes role playing games that would lay off Jonathan Tweet, very likely the best rpg designer, well, period.




What Monte said. JoT hired me and many of the people who get thought of as the intellectual core of Wizards back in the day. He figured out how to revitalize D&D with an approach based on rationality and flexibility. And he'll do that for something else somewhere else, because he's the best game designer in America.

Mike


----------



## Dumnbunny

gribble said:


> Second, I have to disagree with this one. Mass hiring/layoff of staff is not normal business practice by any stretch of the imagination.



Well, I spent about a decade working for [global mega-corporation], and my observations there and with the dozens of large corporations I worked with as clients, I have to say that layoffs are indeed normal.

For example, in my time at [global mega-corporation] I saw four waves of layoffs happen that effected my group, in addition to many others that effected other groups in other countries. Usually what would happen is the bean-counters would decide that each group across the country had to lose x% off their payroll to improve the financial reports for that quarter. Even groups that were performing above expectations would lose that x%.

Sure, they could tighten their belts in other areas, dip into financial reserves, etc. However, the problem is the perceptions that layoffs happen when a company is losing money. Sure, mass layoffs can happen then, but often the layoffs will happen when a company is making a profit, but isn't as profitable as they had projected. Dipping into cash reserves and other measures won't address this, but cutting payroll will. It will improve with quarterly reports, and Wall Street will reward them with higher share values.

Maybe this isn't the way it should be. I don't have an MBA, so I'll withhold comment on whether or not this is a smart way to do business. But from my observations, this is the way it is for a large number of corporations.

Hell, just google hasbro layoffs 2008 and you'll see that WotC isn't the first Hasbro unit to get hit.


----------



## Fifth Element

gribble said:


> Actually, that's _exactly_ my point. I'm pretty sure that H&R Block don't hire and then lay off a large number of permanent staff, if that's their business model. They'd use seasonal or short-term staff for their busy period (if they're sensible).



What's the difference between using seasonal workers, and hiring/laying off staff, other than the words used? In fact, when seasonal workers are done their season, the term used when you let them go is "laid off". Now seasonal work is more predictable as to when you'll start and when you'll be laid off, but there's little practical difference.



gribble said:


> Trust me, I understand - I work in computer software, and in our business it's par for the course to have big spikes due to product releases. A well run business will meet those spikes by using contract staff.



So you mean freelancers, which WotC will be using more of now? That *is* their business model, as I understand it. Developing a new edition is done with a full-time staff, due to the commitment required (and probably also due to confidentiality concerns), while the supplement mill relies more on freelancers.


----------



## gribble

Fifth Element said:


> What you're missing is that these layoffs are likely not 100% due to the economic conditions. Historically, new edition releases have been followed by layoffs. They are probably greater due to the economy, but it's very simplistic to assume these layoffs could have been avoided if the company was "well run".



Not at all. That's exactly what I'm saying - it's more than likely (in fact, I'd say it's a given, with WotC's track record) that these layoffs _aren't_ 100% due to the economy. 

That, IME, implies that the company isn't well run. Companies who have a pattern of mass hirings/layoffs which match boom/bust cycles in their business aren't doing things right. Not only does it create ill-will towards and within the company (the less quantifiable effect), it's also a lot more costly and inefficient than hiring temporary staff and/or tightening the belt in other areas.

Well run companies can deliver cyclic services and products without requiring mass hiring/layoff of permanent staff. I know because I've seen it done, and currently work for a well run company that manages to do it even in the current economic climate.


----------



## Friadoc

gribble said:


> Actually, that's _exactly_ my point. I'm pretty sure that H&R Block don't hire and then lay off a large number of permanent staff, if that's their business model. They'd use seasonal or short-term staff for their busy period (if they're sensible).
> 
> Trust me, I understand - I work in computer software, and in our business it's par for the course to have big spikes due to product releases. A well run business will meet those spikes by using contract staff. You could say it's all in semantics, but at least with contract staff there is an understanding by both parties that the employment is only short term (often only for a specific project).




Nice point, Gribble. Plus, when you have an employment model that has seasonal layoffs as a known option, such as construction or manufacturing, it is stated often and early, with warnings as the yearly purge happens, with promises of binging at the turn of the year.

Good business models avoid layoffs, as much as they can, as it shows a strong demand for their services and products, instead of a fluctuating demand for it. When I was hired at Micron Technologies, back in late-Spring 2006, a big deal was made about how they had only had to layoff once in their history and that they were a stable employer, although they have laid off folk since, more than once, be it due to the market or other reasons within management.

While it is a reasonable option, workforce reduction/layoff, it is something that you come to when you cannot avoid it and is, generally, not something you should work into your longterm planning, at least without the employees knowing it. Although most of us on here are in no way exposed to the inner workings of Wizards of the Coast, or their parent company, there are some assumptions that are obvious and okay to make, they just do not need to be mean spirited, nasty, or like throwing gasoline in a fire in a crowded theater.


----------



## joethelawyer

Darrin, Monte, or anyone who knows how WOTC operates, do you know if it is their standard operating procedure to have employees sign some sort of non-compete agreement either as a part of their employment, or as a condition for a larger severance package?  Just wondering about these guys' ability to work in the industry in the foreseeable future.


----------



## Dragonklaw82

I know its already been said, but let me extend my sincerest condolences. D&D has been an important part of my life for a long time now. It has been a great comfort to me when I was sad, and it has been the centerpiece which brings my friends and I together, even though we live in different corners of the country. It has given me many, many fond memories, and all of it was, in part, because of the work of these individuals. Thank you so much for the impact your work has had on my life. I wish you many blessings to come in yours.

- Nick Laney


----------



## gribble

Dumnbunny said:


> Well, I spent about a decade working for [global mega-corporation], and my observations there and with the dozens of large corporations I worked with as clients, I have to say that layoffs are indeed normal.




Unfortunately the size of a company does not equate to how well it is run (currently). 

Even the worst run company can grow very quickly if it has a successful product or service, and in fact it's often these sorts of companies that easily fall into the boom and bust cycle - quickly hiring too many staff to meet a current need, and then equally quickly laying them off once the current needs disappears.

I'm not saying that well run companies *never* lay off staff, sometimes even the best companies are surprised. What I'm saying is that they don't fall into a regular cycle of hiring and laying off staff as their workload ramps up and down. And (to bring things back on topic...), this is what WotC seems to be doing.


----------



## Fifth Element

gribble said:


> Not at all. That's exactly what I'm saying - it's more than likely (in fact, I'd say it's a given, with WotC's track record) that these layoffs _aren't_ 100% due to the economy.
> 
> *That, IME, implies that the company isn't well run. Companies who have a pattern of mass hirings/layoffs which match boom/bust cycles in their business aren't doing things right.*



(Emphasis added)

This is the part I'm saying is too simplistic. You are assuming that all companies in all industries should have business models that avoid layoffs. That is far too simplistic to be realistic.

Trust me, I have a degree in business management.

You say your own business fills in holes with contractors. There are a multitude of possible reasons why this wouldn't work for WotC's business. They use contractors (freelancers), but not for the development of a new edition. I can see why they would avoid freelancers for that.


----------



## firesnakearies

Man, that's terrible.  Those are some really top-notch names in recent D&D history.

So my question to Mr. Tweet and Mr. Noonan is this:

Where can I make my Paypal payment to pre-order your upcoming releases from your new third-party publishing company?


----------



## Gravedust

This makes me really sad, I just printed off Rescue at Rivenroar today to be the first adventure I DM ever...

Good luck Dave and the others. Hopefully this economy turns around soon.


----------



## Fifth Element

Friadoc said:


> Good business models avoid layoffs, as much as they can, as it shows a strong demand for their services and products, instead of a fluctuating demand for it.



Possibly, but you need to bear in mind WotC's specific business. Even if demand for 4E is constant over the next 10 years, they simply do not need the same number of man-hours to maintain the edition as they did to design it in the first place. Designing and developing a new edition is a huge investment and requires a lot of man-hours. Designing supplements for an existing edition is far less intensive.


----------



## gribble

Fifth Element said:


> What's the difference between using seasonal workers, and hiring/laying off staff, other than the words used?



It may seem like semantics, but there's actually a world of difference. It's generally much more cost efficient and predictable to use temporary workers who are hired for a specific project/duration. Well run businesses are all about predictability and repeatability. 

It also creates much less ill will. If someone is given a 6 month contract, they will be assuming it won't be renewed or extended at the end of that period. If it is, they will be happy about that, but if it isn't they will just look for another contract - it's the life of contract/seasonal staff and they accept it (if they don't, then they should be looking for permanent work).

Permanent staff on the other hand expect (and let's not get into the debate about whether this expectation is valid or not), that once they're given a job it is theirs until they are no longer capable or willing to perform it. Consequently, when they're laid off there is a lot more ill-will towards the company and unease among the retained staff (the "who's next" syndrome).



Fifth Element said:


> Developing a new edition is done with a full-time staff, due to the commitment required (and probably also due to confidentiality concerns), while the supplement mill relies more on freelancers.



Sorry, but having been a contract worker I'm going to call BS on that one. Contract staff are subject to the same confidentiality agreements, and expected to have the same commitment to a project as permanent staff. In fact, it can be argued that contract staff hired for a specific project are often more committed, because it's specifically why they've been hired, and the only thing they're tasked with doing (as opposed to permanent staff, who - despite the best intentions - will always have other demands on their time from the company.


----------



## Mokona

joethelawyer said:


> anyone who knows how WOTC operates, do you know if it is their standard operating procedure to have employees sign some sort of non-compete agreement either as a part of their employment, or as a condition for a larger severance package?



In general it is my impression that non-compete agreements aren't likely or able to be enforced in a court of law.  It would also be bad PR if *Wizards of the Coast* had layoffs and kept its former employees unemployed due to non-compete clauses.  I wouldn't worry about it.


----------



## Friadoc

Fifth Element said:


> Possibly, but you need to bear in mind WotC's specific business. Even if demand for 4E is constant over the next 10 years, they simply do not need the same number of man-hours to maintain the edition as they did to design it in the first place. Designing and developing a new edition is a huge investment and requires a lot of man-hours. Designing supplements for an existing edition is far less intensive.




While I can see your point, that is also working on the assumption that all the work that is going on within Wizard's is just maintaining the edition, however we know that there is development of 4e Realms, 4e Eberron, and potentially something new beyond that. Plus, potentially, there might be a Modern Product with leverage for SciFi, unless they're abandoning those markets to focus on Star Wars Saga Edition.

My theory is that those related to the DDI area where planned further out with some of the more veteran folks in design and development being the product of some aspect of the economy. But, I am still of the opinion that layoffs are a quick and easy stop gap move, instead of a solid business plan or model, without it being obvious, from the start, that seasonal layoffs are part of the business model, as it is with season labor, such as wildfire fighters, construction, and so forth.


----------



## Fifth Element

gribble said:


> It may seem like semantics, but there's actually a world of difference. It's generally much more cost efficient and predictable to use temporary workers who are hired for a specific project/duration. Well run businesses are all about predictability and repeatability.



It's certainly very different from the employee's part of view, but your overriding assumption here seems to be that these layoffs are unexpected. I doubt the WotC staff looked back at the layoffs after 3.0 and 3.5 and said, 'that won't happen this time'.



gribble said:


> Permanent staff on the other hand expect (and let's not get into the debate about whether this expectation is valid or not), that once they're given a job it is theirs until they are no longer capable or willing to perform it.



Okay, we won't get into it. Though I'd suggest it's quite relevant to the discussion, and avoiding it avoids an important aspect of the discussion.



gribble said:


> Consequently, when they're laid off there is a lot more ill-will towards the company and unease among the retained staff (the "who's next" syndrome).



Indeed. You seem to feel that WotC has not considered this. I find that unlikely. They most likely considered it, but decided on this business model anyway because it is only one consideration out of hundreds, if not thousands, of things.



gribble said:


> Sorry, but having been a contract worker I'm going to call BS on that one. Contract staff are subject to the same confidentiality agreements, and expected to have the same commitment to a project as permanent staff.



Legally, yes. You've been a contract worker. Have you also been a manager? The management perspective is quite different from the staff/contractor perspective.

Maybe WotC can't attract the talent they want without offering full-time positions? Maybe the reaction is "I'm not moving to Seattle for *one contract*, even if it does last 12 months."

There are all kinds of reasons why this business model could be the best for WotC, before jumping to "it's not a well-run company".


----------



## Fifth Element

Mokona said:


> In general it is my impression that non-compete agreements aren't likely or able to be enforced in a court of law.



In understand this varies quite a bit by jurisdiction. Where I live, non-competes are enforceable. I know they're not in other locales.


----------



## Friadoc

Mokona said:


> In general it is my impression that non-compete agreements aren't likely or able to be enforced in a court of law.  It would also be bad PR if *Wizards of the Coast* had layoffs and kept its former employees unemployed due to non-compete clauses.  I wouldn't worry about it.




If they have non-compete agreements in place, I doubt they are valid under a layoff or similarly amicable separation of employment. In my experience, most non-compete clauses are in place to keep an employee from using an unfair advantage, or inappropriate business relationship, to jump ship from one company to an associate or partner company. Also, the only way that they have ever been valid is with contract employees, such as professional wrestlers, and in those cases the company pays them out the remainder of their contract and holds them to the end date of the contract.

So, with respect to those impacted by the recent WotC layoff, I doubt that there is an enforcible NCA in place or, as you said, that WotC would enforce it in such a negative fashion.

Odds are, working on assumption here, the folk who had to do the face-to-face on these layoffs probably hated doing it, felt badly, and did the best they could to take care of those folks that were separated from the company due to a fiscal decisions made beyond them.


----------



## Fifth Element

Friadoc said:


> While I can see your point, that is also working on the assumption that all the work that is going on within Wizard's is just maintaining the edition, however we know that there is development of 4e Realms, 4e Eberron, and potentially something new beyond that. Plus, potentially, there might be a Modern Product with leverage for SciFi, unless they're abandoning those markets to focus on Star Wars Saga Edition.



Yes, that's a good point. I was thinking about 4E alone in my arguments. I'd suggest, though, that development of a setting for 4E is still less intensive than the core, since the system is already established and playtested.


----------



## Friadoc

Fifth Element said:


> In understand this varies quite a bit by jurisdiction. Where I live, non-competes are enforceable. I know they're not in other locales.




They are enforcible, to a point, in most places around here, but usually with respect to direct competition, as opposed to unfair leverage to keep someone from seeking general employment in the various industries.

i.e. A semiconductor company could keep an engineer from working for the competition, in the exact same, or closely related role, that is currently filled, however they could not keep them from a further afield position.

Most the times that they have failed, quite regularly, has been when the NCA's have been applied vindictively and without reasonable merit, as you cannot keep someone from working, simply because they decided that they wanted to leave a company, as it is massively unfair to workers, while simultaneously being over empowering an employer.


----------



## joethelawyer

My gut and my experience says that the hiring of many temp/seasonal/freelance workers works well as a cost savings for a company where creativity in terms of the item produced is less of a factor.  In other words, it works when the temp worker is doing cookie cutter stuff, or work where a certain outcome or product is specifically requested in detail.  Like "Develop for me a computer program which does X,Y, and Z.  Here are 20 pages of specs for the program."  I am not saying there is no creativity involved in programming.  Its just that in situations where the end product requested of the freelancer is described in great detail, there is less room to really leave a creative stamp on the product where people recognize "Ahh, this was a program created by Bill," when the program is simply a bit of accounting software or online billing product created to certain specific specifications.  Temp stuff also works well for stuff like boring filing, document review, etc.  

(I am not trying to denigrate programmers, and I suspect we may have a large population of them here, or any other job, as I have experience with all of the jobs I spoke of above, so I used them as examples.  If you want to argue the point with me rather than try and understand the larger point i am trying to make, take it to email please.)

I don't see temp/freelance/seasonal working too well when you are developing core products and systems for a game like D&D, where the style and taste and overall mindset of the core crew of creative minds behind the game leave such a huge mark on the final product.  It does work well for supplements, splat books, stuff like that.  It's just hard to keep a consistent style, vision, and cohesiveness to the core materials when you keep wiping out the team of masterminds behind the core materials before all the core materils are all the way out the door.

Plus, as Monte said, you lose all the institutional experience when you fire the "old guys" which leads to the new guys making the same mistakes every few years.

But rather than argue the merits of temp vs full time, I again want to express my sympathies for those who were heartlesly fired just a few weeks before the holidays, and express my concern for what this means for the future of WOTC and the D&D brand.  While I don't care at all for 4e, I do appreciate the role the D&D brand has in bringing new gamers to the tables.  Who knows, maybe it truly is the beginning of a great new era in gaming, without the 800 lb. gorilla overshadowing everything.


----------



## Friadoc

Fifth Element said:


> Yes, that's a good point. I was thinking about 4E alone in my arguments. I'd suggest, though, that development of a setting for 4E is still less intensive than the core, since the system is already established and playtested.




It really depends on how they handle the development of the setting, since it can either be no change (Eberron), minor change (unseen), or major change (Forgotten Realms), each of which has a change of intensity in development of new material, resources, and unique layout of information. While there could be a simple reprint of previous work wrapped around new rules, ala d20 Dark*Matter, a fair deal of which was the verbatim tech from the Alternity Edition, it is a less commonly used method.

In my experience, new crunch takes less folks than new fluff, but my exposure is more minor than I'd like, so I could be totally wrong here, especially with respect to the current edition of D&D's rules set.

All of this said, though, the human element is very important, both to the folks laid off, to those who still work their, and potential folks who might work there, or for those there. The people who were laid off, from the look of it, were not expecting it, but are trying to cope with it. Their co-workers have, most likely, a level of survivors guilt, and have to work through that and, lastly, those who want to work there, or for there, have an odd level of worry now, too.

While it might make sense with dry numbers, layoffs make less and less sense on the human factor, even though they can often protect the larger numbers from losing their jobs. As has been said elsewhere, there is something to be said about private companies and their abilities to play things a bit tighter, as opposed to publicly traded companies, who work, to a degree, at the whims of the BOD and investors and stockholders.


----------



## d20Dwarf

Mike Selinker said:


> And he'll do that for something else somewhere else, because he's the best game designer in America.
> 
> Mike




Yeah, I didn't want to step on anybody's toes in the thread, but that's my feeling as well. I'm very sad that he won't have WotC's might behind him, but I'm sure this can be as freeing as it is restricting to his future endeavors. I can't wait to see what he does next.


----------



## joethelawyer

Friadoc said:


> If they have non-compete agreements in place, I doubt they are valid under a layoff or similarly amicable separation of employment.




While it varies on a state by state basis, and depending on the terms of the individual agreements, you'd be wrong in that opinion, overall.  You would especially want them in those situations.  

Plus this may be semantics, but lets not pussyfoot around here.

Layoff = GET YOUR ASS OUTTA HERE.  YOU'RE FIRED!

Separation of employment = GET YOUR ASS OUTTA HERE.  YOU'RE FIRED!

When you say "layoff or similarly amicable separation of employment", how is a layoff amicable?

Ask any of those 24 people if they had an amicable experience yesterday.


----------



## Zaruthustran

Mike Selinker said:


> What Monte said. JoT hired me and many of the people who get thought of as the intellectual core of Wizards back in the day. He figured out how to revitalize D&D with an approach based on rationality and flexibility. And he'll do that for something else somewhere else, because he's the best game designer in America.
> 
> Mike




First: welcome, Mike Selinker, to ENWorld! 

Second: while the layoff is terrible, I'm really looking forward to what an independent JoT will create. He is a brilliant and amazing man.


----------



## Friadoc

joethelawyer said:


> While it varies on a state by state basis, and depending on the terms of the individual agreements, you'd be wrong in that opinion, overall.  You would especially want them in those situations.
> 
> Plus this may be semantics, but lets not pussyfoot around here.
> 
> Layoff = GET YOUR ASS OUTTA HERE.  YOU'RE FIRED!
> 
> Separation of employment = GET YOUR ASS OUTTA HERE.  YOU'RE FIRED!
> 
> When you say "layoff or similarly amicable separation of employment", how is a layoff amicable?
> 
> Ask any of those 24 people if they had an amicable experience yesterday.




Well, as I had it hammered home in my head, several times, being laid off does not mean you were bad at your job, incompetent, and what not, but that they just needed to make cuts, thus it is, was, less directly personal as being fired because you are a lousy employee, bad at your jobs, a problem, or what not.

Plus, layoffs sometimes have severance packages, benefits, the ability to instantly apply for unemployment, with waiting periods before payout, of course, and other state and federal potentials for assistance and programs. 

Yet, when you are summarily fired, that is it, either you get nothing, in addition to a bad mark on the employment history, or you have to find for proper recognition.

Now that does not mean that being laid off does not hurt, as it does, but it does mean that it is not a sign of you doing badly, but more the company making a hard choice, without it being a reflection on you, the employee.

Amicable separations are more like, "This sucks, we know it, but we need to make cuts and your feel within those cuts. Your managers will write letters of recommendation, here is a severance package, and a list of work placement benefits."

It is a lot less painful then, say, getting a phone call telling you not to show up to work, not to set foot on the property, and that your particulars will be mailed to you.

A lot less.


----------



## Fifth Element

joethelawyer said:


> Layoff = GET YOUR ASS OUTTA HERE.  YOU'RE FIRED!
> 
> Separation of employment = GET YOUR ASS OUTTA HERE.  YOU'RE FIRED!



Yeah, regardless of the legal form of what happens, from the employee's perspective it often matters little.


----------



## Breschau of Livonia

Regarding the layoffs - ladies and gentlemen, you've got my sympathy - and empathy. I've been there. Back in '02 the tech startup I worked for went under - just a little while after my first child was born. I know it was a rough time for me - worrying about finances, getting a new job in a lousy economy.  Hang in there folks - you've brought a lot of joy to a lot of us here in geekdom and the karma's gotta be good for something.

I can't speak to whether its good business to have cyclic layoffs depending on the economy - I'm on the techie side of things, not the business.  But I know being in layoff environments is brutal - the anticipation (rumors usually are afloat, sometimes even announcements). And even if you survive one round there's always the next. And there's the increased workload from the missing people, the damage to morale. It might make shareholders happy - and I've known companies that pride themselves in canning people even in good times - but it's gotta have some negative impact on the bottom line.

As far as non-compete goes - it really depends on how much the company wants to enforce them and how much they can spend on lawyers. Whether enforceable or not they can make your life miserable. 

I've never been a contractor, but I've had good experience using them. Contractors who gain a rep for not respecting confidentiality tend not to go very far, so it is in my mind a perfectly reasonable business model, especially for short to medium term needs, avoiding the crushing damage to morale that layoffs bring.

OK I'm done pontificating...


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> In understand this varies quite a bit by jurisdiction. Where I live, non-competes are enforceable. I know they're not in other locales.




The enforceability of a NCC hinges on several things, not the least of which is whether it is "unconscionable," the scope of the NCC, and the geographic area it covers.

Whether a NCC is unconscionable is a balance test between the company's valid reasons for having the NCC in the first place and the ability of the person covered by it to find gainful employment.

Given that the RPG industry involves precious few true corporate secrets- things that would be on a par with KFC's secret recipe, for instance- it would be hard for a court to justify barring someone from working in the biz on that rationale.

Ditto the size of the industry- despite the explosion in the number of companies since the dawn of the hobby, the number of professional level game designers probably wouldn't fill a mid-sized auditorium, and most of them probably know each other on sight.  This also means that there aren't many vacant slots to be filled at any one time.  (Besides, can you imagine what trying to get a job with another RPG company if _you_ were known to be the one who tried to get a NCC enforced?)

Given the nature of publishing these games, the geographic coverage of a NCC would be considered national or international.  A court considering enforcing a NCC would presumably ask the party seeking its enforcement to meet a high burden of proof.

Put all together, its unlikely that a court would enforce most NCCs in the RPG industry, assuming a company tried to enforce one.



> When you say "layoff or similarly amicable separation of employment", how is a layoff amicable?




A layoff is probably not amicable, but a separation of employment may be moreso than a true layoff.

I know of several people who were facing true layoffs who were given the option of continuing employment by becoming independent contractors.

Usually, its not quite as good a deal as full employment, but in a downward spiraling economy, it sure beats the alternative.  And if you're particularly skilled, it may even be a better deal.

The father of a friend of mine worked in the oil industry in Tx, and lost his job on Dec. 24 of that year.  By Jan 2, they had re-hired him to work in a different office within the company, still in the USA.  By April, he was downsized again, but was offered a position as an independent contractor...in Paris.  In addition to keeping his salary, they even offered covering the family's moving expenses, as well as round trip plane tickets for the 2 kids for when they were out of school (both were in college in the USA).

Emotionally draining?  Certainly- but it _did_ work out for the best.

While some of those WotC laid off are surely looking for new jobs, AFAIK, its not known whether any of them will be given positions as freelancers.


----------



## joethelawyer

Fifth Element said:


> Yeah, regardless of the legal form of what happens, from the employee's perspective it often matters little.




Exactly.  At the end of the day, you still have to worry about putting food on your kids plates, making the house payment, and trying to put away a little bit for the kids college and your retirement.  

Whether you got some severance package or not, whether it was due to your performance or not, whether you get a handshake or a kick in the ass, when you walk out the door that last time, it sucks.


----------



## Elrith

What really bothers about these layoff is the fact that when business people talk about building a "brand"  (an ugly word, but perhaps better than "property") they almost always emphasis a personal connection with the consumer. WotC has been doing this with Magic for years, and over the last three years has really pushed D&D that way: the Design and Development columns by Mearls, the almost unused R&D Blogs, the convention blogs and video coverage, and the podcast. They made Noonan a major face for the "brand" (I think) because he's a very good RP writer with good ability to convey his enthusiasm in an intelligent and respectful manner. So the layoff looks really bad becuase he's one of the few faces that Wizards has presented to us. They damage their image not only by laying people off before the holidays, but also by laying off people they made the representatives of D&D. 

Laying off Tweet makes me think of when the Oilers traded Wayne Gretsky...


----------



## Scribble

joethelawyer said:


> Exactly.  At the end of the day, you still have to worry about putting food on your kids plates, making the house payment, and trying to put away a little bit for the kids college and your retirement.
> 
> Whether you got some severance package or not, whether it was due to your performance or not, whether you get a handshake or a kick in the ass, when you walk out the door that last time, it sucks.




Having been laid off before I can say it does indeed suck. One thing though that offers a slight glimemr of happy in the sea of suck... is that with a layoff at least you can approach the next prospective employer with most likely a positive past experience.

Whereas when you're fired, you pretty much have to start with: Yes, I was fired, but here's why you should still hire me.

Not having to overcome a negative mark is at least something.

Ultimately it still sucks, and my heart goes out to them all.


----------



## joethelawyer

Dannyalcatraz said:


> The enforceability of a NCC hinges on several things, not the least of which is whether it is "unconscionable," the scope of the NCC, and the geographic area it covers.
> 
> Whether a NCC is unconscionable is a balance test between the company's valid reasons for having the NCC in the first place and the ability of the person covered by it to find gainful employment.
> 
> Given that the RPG industry involves precious few true corporate secrets- things that would be on a par with KFC's secret recipe, for instance- it would be hard for a court to justify barring someone from working in the biz on that rationale.
> 
> Ditto the size of the industry- despite the explosion in the number of companies since the dawn of the hobby, the number of professional level game designers probably wouldn't fill a mid-sized auditorium, and most of them probably know each other on sight.  This also means that there aren't many vacant slots to be filled at any one time.  (Besides, can you imagine what trying to get a job with another RPG company if _you_ were known to be the one who tried to get a NCC enforced?)
> 
> Given the nature of publishing these games, the geographic coverage of a NCC would be considered national or international.  A court considering enforcing a NCC would presumably ask the party seeking its enforcement to meet a high burden of proof.
> 
> Put all together, its unlikely that a court would enforce most NCCs in the RPG industry, assuming a company tried to enforce one.




You're a lawyer too, right Danny?  You analysis is  my understanding as well.  My concern, however, is that I have heard of situations wherein the company essentially offers two different compensation packages upon termination, one with a strict longer term non-compete, one without.  Obviously the one with the better compensation package has the more restrictive non-compete clauses.  

That may have some impact on whether or not a person even tries to fight it, especially if the money in the compensation package is doled out over the full time-frame of the non-compete agreement.   It also makes it not a pure non-compete agreement fight, under the framework you laid out above.  It blurs the line into making it a bargained for contract of another sort, with valid consideration for the non-compete.  Do you have any experience with such situations?

Which goes back to my earlier post--does anyone with WOTC experience know how they draft their non-competes and terms of termination agreements?  Can these guys be hired by Paizo on Friday?


----------



## Mokona

Another source of information:

Full story at ICv2 - Digital Consolidation at WotC

...
Reached for comment by ICv2, a WotC spokesperson noted, “Wizards of the Coast consolidated its digital game organizations to streamline execution of digital growth strategies for core brands.”



Wizards of the Coast President Greg Leeds also weighed in.  “Consolidating internal resources coupled with improved outsourcing allows us to gain efficiencies in executing against our major digital initiatives Magic Online and D&D Insider,” he said.  “Wizards of the Coast is well positioned to maximize future opportunities, including further brand development on digital platforms.  The result of this consolidation is a more streamlined approach to driving core brands.”
...


----------



## Friadoc

joethelawyer said:


> Exactly.  At the end of the day, you still have to worry about putting food on your kids plates, making the house payment, and trying to put away a little bit for the kids college and your retirement.
> 
> Whether you got some severance package or not, whether it was due to your performance or not, whether you get a handshake or a kick in the ass, when you walk out the door that last time, it sucks.




It most definitely does suck and hurt, more so if the person affected has not had any direct and real lose, such as a loved one passing or such, since we tend to put so much of ourselves into our job, often told as we grew up that if you are good, hard worker that you will always have a job. Yet, suddenly, a good hard worker is laid off through no real fault of their own.

My first lay off happened just before I turned thirty-two, literally the week before my birthday, a handful of weeks after we splurged and bought a new PC, as well as the week I started my GenCon plans (I didn't go) and in the midst of a freelance project.

It came out of no where, so much so that I had narrowly avoided buying a house, due to the inability of my company to answer a simple question, all while saying that our jobs were safe and sound. So, while it was mostly unexpected, there was that one hint, yet I was a hard worker, always putting in extra time when asked, and a team player. I was, literally, the third person to go, right after the two people in the company who were our anchor statements, i.e. So long as So-and-So has a job, we're safe. Thus, the two bad examples got let go and then myself, as well as a few other folk.

I was stunned, I didn't know what to tell my girlfriend (our lil' man just turned one a few months earlier) and it sucked. I went out drinking that night with a friend, who was there for me, as well as his brother, when I was laid off again.

It is an odd hurt, both times, hence those suffering it have all the sympathy and empathy I have, hopefully something, anything, said by us on here helps them a bit, which it seems to so far, and that's a good thing.


----------



## ruemere

First of all, a piece of music, "The Piano [Life is a song]":
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z2ljWwIaHs]YouTube - The Piano [Life is a song][/ame]

Secondly, it appears to me that WotC has problem with forming long term plans with regard to media:
- premature switch to digital form of periodical media
- lack of clear and supportive policy for indirect business partners (GSL)
- high degree of staff turnover

Thirdly, latest products contain rehash of 3.0 and 3.5 material adapted to 4E or somewhat problematic reinventions of older stuff (no new settings, somewhat slow and awkward support for already published settings). Examples:
- reinvention of FR, which alienated large portion of fanbase - best business solution would be to build new subset of realms to appeal to new fans while providing support for continuity of campaigns of old time fans
- popular settings of Greyhawk, Dark Sun, Ravenloft, Eberron suffer from serious support delay for those who would like to convert their campaigns - digital media should support such switch upon release of 4E to enahnce appeal 4E instead of forcing people to choose or convert by themselves
- there is no promise of continual support, merely 3 books per setting intention - this is good for novices, but may be not sufficient for those who invested into 3.x over the course of several years


In the light of the above, I feel doubly sorry for those who leave. May you find some nice place in this rather fragmented market.

I also feel sorry for those who stay, since it will be their duty now to carry on with supporting rich culture of D&D worlds. I hope you can do this... mind you, I don't like 4E, but I would hate even more to see such large part RPG world to suffer further.

Finally, to all. It's not the end of the world, there is infinity of imagination to live through and put on paper. It's just that I hope that all the talented people will find ways to contribute to gaming community (and prosper, of course).

Regards,
Ruemere


----------



## Fifth Element

Scribble said:


> Having been laid off before I can say it does indeed suck. One thing though that offers a slight glimemr of happy in the sea of suck... is that with a layoff at least you can approach the next prospective employer with most likely a positive past experience.



I've been laid off once in my career, and I've resigned twice. The resignations were much more pleasant, from my perspective. But you're right about the positive experience. Hopefully, in the case of a negative experience, you're able to resign before being let go (as was the case with my first resignation).

And I want to say that I hope all this discussion doesn't distract from the sympathies being given to these great people who are now out of work. They certainly have mine.


----------



## StarFyre

*awww*

my best wishes to those affected.

very sad 

Sanjay


----------



## I'm A Banana

I think I need to defend WotC a little bit here.

First, there's this from Fifth Element that bears repeating:



			
				Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Developing a new edition requires far more work than a regular publishing schedule. Layoffs are de rigueur shortly after a new edition release, because staff was built up beforehand to develop the new edition.
> 
> I just think it's simplistic to suggest that a "well-run business" should not have layoffs. It's more complicated than that.




The savvy folks who watched the Coasties for the last decade or so probably were expecting this. It happened in 3e, it happened in 3.5, and it'll probably happen again afte 5e. I believe in both 3e and 3.5 it happened during the Christmas season.

Second, while a lot of the emotion of Monte's post resonantes with me, there is a little something at work in the idea of "fire the senior developers."

The idea is that no business likes to lay off people. They do it because they have to, not because they want to.

Getting rid of the senior members of the crew allows them to fire the least amount of people to save the greatest amount of money and with the least amount of regret (because it's easier for experienced management to find jobs than it is for Billy the New Guy). It's something of a balancing act, because they do need to remember what happened in the past (which requires those senior members), but they also need to cut expenses.

I'm not saying it was an entirely genius idea from Wizards. They probably could have spread it out better, hit several different levels, and maybe timed it better (can't you let people enjoy their holidays before you depress them?).

But there is logic behind this axe. They're not being Big Evil Corporate Overlords of Evil. They're running a business. 

And, on the bright side....these great editors and designers can still find work through the OGL. I'm sure if they want it, it's there.

....though part of me is now REALLY SAD about the GSL being so FUBAR'd, or they could just go on writing 4e stuff.


----------



## Allister

It's why you don't see the same thing from the M:TG side of WOTC. (If there are layoffs on that side, then WOTC is in big trouble).

M:TG is basically always producing a new edition every 4 months so there are never mass layoffs from that side....


----------



## Darrin Drader

joethelawyer said:


> Darrin, Monte, or anyone who knows how WOTC operates, do you know if it is their standard operating procedure to have employees sign some sort of non-compete agreement either as a part of their employment, or as a condition for a larger severance package?  Just wondering about these guys' ability to work in the industry in the foreseeable future.




Unless things have changed drastically in the past four years, the noncompete lasts only as long as they work for the company. Also, again dated information because I haven't been there for a few years, but you could ask permission to work on projects for other companies and still work for them. Such requests were usually approved as long as they didn't see it as a danger to the brand. Back then, nothing was seen as a danger to the brand, not even other D20 projects, so it wasn't a problem. These days it might be a little more strict, but I'm fairly positive that once you're shown the door, you're free to write for whoever.


----------



## Ghaerdon Fain

I'm willing to write this and take the criticism, and indeed this is naive and ignorant, but I don't like the business of DnD and have never seen it as a business.  Gygax did I'm sure, but what I bought as a youth was more than just some game out of a business model.  What I always liked was that TSR seemed to "care" about its fans and its contibutors [emphasis on "seem"].  

I'm pissed.  Letting these people go now seems wrong especially given the supposed success of the product line.  I have stuck by 4E and bought a copy of everything at least once, now I am not so keen to suport this bunch of goons.  I hope and pray Dave finds a great job with Paizo or starts something himself... but I find this distastful, not because it's December, but because this "game" and the people behind it don't care about keeping the quality in house.  

I was so excited about the Character Creator... now, I'm thinking of looking at that Paizo beta gathering cyber-dust in some obscure Folder ... maybe they care about their fan base and their employees more.

This is not the economics of the time.. this is "business" and these people didn't fit the model or brand anymore.


----------



## seankreynolds

joethelawyer said:


> Which goes back to my earlier post--does anyone with WOTC experience know how they draft their non-competes and terms of termination agreements?  Can these guys be hired by Paizo on Friday?




I don't recall the specifics of my non-compete, but:

* The day after I was laid off in 2003, Monte asked me to write a book for him, and Wizards didn't bat an eye.
* To the best of my recollection, the elements of the non-compete relate only to things the employee was working on or had knowledge of at the company. For example, if Dave was working on the 4e book of dragons, his non-compete would prevent him from publishing a similar book, at least until some period after his termination date. It didn't address all game design in general, just "proprietary knowledge" of what the company had planned.

And FYI, because of the Microsoft ruling, Wizards can't hire any of these people back as contractors for a certain period of time (6 months?). Apparently MS had a habit of laying off employees and then contracting them at lower wages and no benefits, and in response the court ruled that companies weren't allowed to do that any more. So while Dave and Jonathan can easily find work elsewhere in the industry, Wizards has now prevented itself from accessing their talents for a while.

Please pardon my unemotional post, I've already expressed my sympathies to my friends in private.


----------



## seankreynolds

Kamikaze Midget said:


> The idea is that no business likes to lay off people. They do it because they have to, not because they want to.




It depends on what you mean by "have to."

If your RPG division expected to make $10,000,000 dollars this year, and it now looks like it's "only" going to make $8,000,000 dollars this year, does that mean you "have to" lay off people so your numbers are better?

If your company expected to make $100,000,000 dollars this year, but screwups with your digital initiative mean that you "only" made $95,000,000, does that mean you "have to" lay off people in other departments so your numbers are better?

To use a Hasbro example, if your overall revenue is down, and all divisions have negative revenue, and one division (say, Wizards) has positive revenue, does that mean you "have to" make 10% cuts across all divisions (including Wizards, your ONE profitable division), just so your numbers are better?



Fenarisk said:


> I'm sorry to break this to you but 99% of the people who buy and use D&D products have no idea who these people are and don't recognize/care about the names.




And 93.2% of all statistics are made up on the spot. Where is your proof of the number you cite? There are many people who DO buy books based on the author's name. Just because you aren't one of them, or you don't have anyone in your gaming group, doesn't mean that you are an example of an overwhelming majority

...

All I know is, if I see one press release in the next 12 months about how 4e is making record-breaking sales, I'm going to link to this thread, and I'll probably have to stab somebody.


----------



## joethelawyer

seankreynolds said:


> I don't recall the specifics of my non-compete, but:
> 
> * The day after I was laid off in 2003, Monte asked me to write a book for him, and Wizards didn't bat an eye.
> * To the best of my recollection, the elements of the non-compete relate only to things the employee was working on or had knowledge of at the company. For example, if Dave was working on the 4e book of dragons, his non-compete would prevent him from publishing a similar book, at least until some period after his termination date. It didn't address all game design in general, just "proprietary knowledge" of what the company had planned.





Thats encouraging news.  Hopefully they will be able to get back on their feet sooner, rather than later.


----------



## Darrin Drader

seankreynolds said:


> All I know is, if I see one press release in the next 12 months about how 4e is making record-breaking sales, I'm going to link to this thread, and I'll probably have to stab somebody.




Let's hope that the timing of the release and the availability of a knife don't happen to coincide with my impending tour of the Paizo offices.


----------



## Aus_Snow

seankreynolds said:


> And 93.2% of all statistics are made up on the spot. Where is your proof of the number you cite? There are many people who DO buy books based on the author's name. Just because you aren't one of them, or you don't have anyone in your gaming group, doesn't mean that you are an example of an overwhelming majority



Quite. For example - keeping in mind here that the gamers I know, some of whom I game with, are not by any means all 'hardcore' types, let alone necessarily even _very part-time_ inhabitants of the interwebs - most gamers I know are probably familiar with at least most of the major names relevant to most of the games they play. Or hey, even the games they just _own_ and haven't tried yet.

And with regards to Mr. Noonan, I suspect that well, _every single person_ who's ever listened to one of those podcasts (and that's likely to be a lot of gamers, in all likelihood) knows _his_ name, at the very least.*

* This is directly relevant, because of what the post i replied to was in reply to, +1 or so, perhaps.


----------



## gribble

Woah, a lot of posts to reply to. I'll just stick to the most germaine ones.



			
				Fifth Element said:
			
		

> It's certainly very different from the employee's part of view, but your overriding assumption here seems to be that these layoffs are unexpected. I doubt the WotC staff looked back at the layoffs after 3.0 and 3.5 and said, 'that won't happen this time'.



You really seem to be misreading or misunderstanding me. If the layoffs were unexpected, then why would that point to poor management? As I've already stated, even the best companies can sometimes get tripped up. It's exactly the fact that they have been cyclic and expected that leads me to believe it's poor management and not just hiccups behind them.



			
				Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Okay, we won't get into it. Though I'd suggest it's quite relevant to the discussion, and avoiding it avoids an important aspect of the discussion.



The reason I suggest we don't get into it is exactly because it _isn't_ relevant. The fact is that most people in permanent positions have those expectations - whether or not the expectations are valid doesn't change the fact that layoffs result in ill-feelings towards the company (from ex-employees, remaining employees and customers) largely because of those expectations.

Do people get upset (heck, do people even notice?) when a contractor or freelancer who worked on a previous book isn't offered the contract for the next book?



			
				Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Indeed. You seem to feel that WotC has not considered this.



Not at all. I'm sure they did consider it, unless the management is truly incompetent. I don't see why you'd think this or how it's even relevant...



			
				Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Legally, yes. You've been a contract worker. Have you also been a manager? The management perspective is quite different from the staff/contractor perspective.



Firstly, yes - I have been a permanent employee, a contract worker, a manager of a small team, and a senior manager (not quite part of the company executive, but one step below and I was privy to a lot of their discussions and decision making). So you could say that I've seen it from a lot of angles, in both well and poorly run companies. Other than a business degree, what about yourself?

Secondly, what way other than legally is there to look at a confidentiality agreement? All it is is a legal way of saying "I promise I won't tell", and IME, contractors are no worse than permanent employees in respecting them. In fact, I'd go so far as to say they're usually better because as someone else pointed out, in my industry at least, word quickly gets around about contractors with loose lips and they'll find it very hard to find employment.



			
				Fifth Element said:
			
		

> There are all kinds of reasons why this business model could be the best for WotC, before jumping to "it's not a well-run company".



Product-based software development usually has a big first release of the initial product. A lot of thinking and product design goes into that initial release, along with a large team and a goodly amount of creativity in determining the technical foundation and feature set. Then, you typically enter a maintenance period whereby a much smaller (and arguably less creative) team is involved in supporting that product. Eventually, the product reaches end of life, and the cycle is repeated with a new and improved version or even a totally new product.

Maybe I'm just naive, but I don't see how what WotC does and what the software development industry does is significantly different. As someone else pointed out there is (arguably) a more creative element in RPG design, but fundamentally they seem pretty similar to me. In fact, with the advent of DDI it's becoming even more similar if not identical...

To help me understand, perhaps you could explain to me how hiring a bunch of permanent employees to work on a single product/project for a year or two (with the foreknowledge that you'll just be firing a large number of them afterwards) is a better business model than bringing on freelance/contract workers for the project with an explicit and mutual understanding that the contracts are only for 1-2 years?

I can't see it being cheaper. Not even in raw cost, as the total cost of a permanent employee to a company is usually more than that of a freelance/contract employee, but especially not when you consider the impact on company image (and the perception of company stability) and morale of the staff not laid off. Arguably laying off senior employees to (ultimately, when the next hiring cycle comes around) replace them with new juniors could work out cheaper on the bottom line, but it is very shortsighted and will have other obvious costs. I've worked at a company that tried that, and it went very badly for them - to the point that only now (about 5-6 years later) are they finally starting to turn things around.



			
				Allister said:
			
		

> M:TG is basically always producing a new edition every 4 months so there are never mass layoffs from that side....



That's a good point. Maybe WotC management is just too used to thinking about this model of business, rather than a more publishing/software oriented model. Although after a couple of cycles now you'd think they would start to look at it and adjust. Maybe they don't see it as a problem. While IME it isn't the best way to do it, maybe it's _good enough_ for them so they just don't recognise it as a problem and continue with the same practice?



			
				seankreynolds said:
			
		

> It depends on what you mean by "have to."
> To use a Hasbro example, if your overall revenue is down, and all divisions have negative revenue, and one division (say, Wizards) has positive revenue, does that mean you "have to" make 10% cuts across all divisions (including Wizards, your ONE profitable division), just so your numbers are better?



Exactly. I'd also add that any business purely making these decisions based on _this_ years performance is the very definition of "poor management" (unless of course the company is set up purely to realise short term gains, but - I hope - neither WotC or Hasbro is in this category). Management should be pro-active, not reactive. The proper response when earnings are down 10% on your forecasts is to figure out *why* it's down 10%, what the trends are and what the forecast for the next year (and probably the following couple of years as well) is looking like. If there isn't anything you can do (short term) to pull them around, the indicators are that you really do need to cut costs longer term, and you don't have better ways of cutting costs, then the regrettable reality is that laying off permanent staff may be your best (or only) option. But (to bring the discussion back to the original post that sparked everything) - it shouldn't be considered a _normal_ part of your business operation in a well run company.

Plus, IMO, the first heads on the block should be the forecasters who put you in this position. Though that's just personal taste and not based on sound business judgement.




			
				Fifth Element said:
			
		

> And I want to say that I hope all this discussion doesn't distract from the sympathies being given to these great people who are now out of work. They certainly have mine.



I couldn't agree more - they certainly have mine too. Perhaps we should just agree to disagree then? Although I'm genuinely curious about your thoughts on the questions I posed above. Perhaps you could PM me or fork the thread if you're interested in continuing the discussion?


----------



## Kid Charlemagne

Friadoc said:


> While there could be some underestimation there, I think there is also a track record on WotC's part, too, with respect of layoffs and their timing.




On the other hand, anyone who signed on with WoTC for the 4E ramp up _had_ to realize that fewer people were going to be needed after the launch, and planned accordingly.


----------



## Umbran

joethelawyer said:


> When you say "layoff or similarly amicable separation of employment", how is a layoff amicable?




"Layoff" is often used to denote separation for reasons other than your job performance.  It isn't that you didn't do your job well, or someone didn't like you - the company simply didn't have a place for you any more.  It is amicable in that the people who let you go still like you, and are apt to give you a good recommendation.

"Amicable" and "you like what happened" are not necessarily the same thing.


----------



## deadsmurf

seankreynolds said:


> And 93.2% of all statistics are made up on the spot. Where is your proof of the number you cite? There are many people who DO buy books based on the author's name. Just because you aren't one of them, or you don't have anyone in your gaming group, doesn't mean that you are an example of an overwhelming majority




Unfortunately only a small percentage of any consumer looks at the people behind the scenes for making <product>  At a certain point people begin not so much looking at the stars in a movie and look at directors and writers.  People stop looking at the president as the face of a faceless government and start paying close attention to congresspersons and senators and their staffers.  They don't just look for the Masthead of their favourite fantasy shared world (ie Dragonlance) and only read the ones by Tracy & Hickman or Jeff Grubb.  You're not just reading Wolverine for the character but you want to read the arc written by Jeph Loeb.

It's the same in any business or media.  The vast majority of people will just look at the surface, and the people who are genuinely interested (and these are the people who ususally end up working in the field)

I don't know where I am going with this, but I am really sorry to hear about all this, Tweet and Noonan were both great designers... it's a loss for all D&D players.
At least Buehler will be able to use his permanent invite to the Magic pro-tour now, so at least a small upside there.

I'm not that familiar with the others other than some vague recognition of the names, and I feel bad for you all of you.  Good luck and try to have a good christmas despite all this.


----------



## ShinHakkaider

Piratecat said:


> Major layoffs during the 3e era created some award-winning game companies: Green Ronin, Malhavoc Games, and quite a few more. I can only hope that layoffs during the 4e era do the same.




With the GSL being the way it is? Unlikely.


----------



## Darrin Drader

ShinHakkaider said:


> With the GSL being the way it is? Unlikely.




Who said they have to design for 4th edition?


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman

Kid Charlemagne said:


> On the other hand, anyone who signed on with WoTC for the 4E ramp up _had_ to realize that fewer people were going to be needed after the launch, and planned accordingly.




Tweet was there a long time before that!

But I agree though: anyone who's signed on with WotC since, say, 2001, has to be aware that their business model defines "permanent employment" as "4 to 10 years."


And my sympathies for all those made redundant. The "just before Christmas" technique always seems particularly cruel, though I doubt it's any more fun at any other time.


----------



## gribble

Kid Charlemagne said:


> On the other hand, anyone who signed on with WoTC for the 4E ramp up _had_ to realize that fewer people were going to be needed after the launch, and planned accordingly.




Not necessarily. With all the secrecy around 4e, a prospective employee my not have known about the ramp up until after the hiring process. And even if they did, as I said previously, when you're offered a permanent position the expectation is that it's _permanent_ and that you'll have until until you're not longer capable or willing to do the job. At least that's what I'd expect, barring an unforseen disaster and I certainly wouldn't join a company with the expectation that the company wouldn't do well and the position I'm being hired for would be obselete or redundant in the short-medium term

I'd assume that in a well run company any temporary ramp up would be met by contractors and/or freelancers, or at the very least that the position would be described to me as only being temporary or with a limited shelf life.
IMO, companies should be hiring permanent employees when they're trending or forecasting permanent growth. Not when they need to meet short-term project-based needs.


----------



## Herremann the Wise

seankreynolds said:


> It depends on what you mean by "have to."
> 
> If your RPG division expected to make $10,000,000 dollars this year, and it now looks like it's "only" going to make $8,000,000 dollars this year, does that mean you "have to" lay off people so your numbers are better?



I think this a very salient point. A company we're dealing with at the moment in the window furnishing industry is going through this exact same process (as I'm sure many are at the moment). It is all about meeting targets for them and with the worldwide economic downturn, everyone's doing their best to "look good". [How good it actually looks depends very much upon which side of the fence one is sitting]

However, I'll ask again now that I've seen a few responses and respected points of view: "what does this mean"?

The following analogy may be disturbingly appropriate. In Australia here where most farmers have to regularly deal with significant drought issues, the culling of some of your cattle is unfortuantely necessary. However, in this process a farmer will never touch their breeding stock unless they absolutely have to. Have WotC cut into their "breeding stock" in their thinning of the herd? I can't help but feel that they have (but that is very much from a fan-based but ultimately uninformed point of view).

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## justanobody

Hogwash!

How does firing people help to focus more "internal resources" on anything? Less money? Oh well fire the people that cost the most to employ of course is always the answer. Not!

Dave make your podcasts yourself, and Solice start your own  forums!

I mean PHBII isn't even finished yet so who will finish the druid now if not Dave?

WotC gets coal for Christmas!

I don't think the recession is all to blame for this, nor do I think the new edition cycle of layoffs is right. Jesper Myrfors still works on cards but not Magic cards, maybe you guys could find that Bella Sera card game and work on it or something!

I don't feel like I need to rent A Christmas Carol this year, but do feel you guys got Scrooged.


----------



## Brown Jenkin

I know that past editions had a boom/bust cycle over its lifetime in regards to revenue, which also explains the hire/layoff cycle we have seen. I also see what apears to be a level of failure with regards to the new strategy WotC was going with to try to stop that cycle in 4E. WotC made several decisions that were supposed to level the income stream over the life of the product. The core books were intentionally limited in scope with PHBx, MMx, and DMGx coming out every year so that the first 3 books would no longer be considered all that was needed. This would to some extent match the yearly MtG product cycle where new rules/power systems are introduced each year. Then the DDI was also designed on a subscription model so that a consistant revenue stream would be coming in each month. It seems to me that these attempts to flatten the revenue stream have not worked out so far.


----------



## ShinHakkaider

Darrin Drader said:


> Who said they have to design for 4th edition?




I pretty much stopped listening to the D&D podcasts when 4E was announced, I may have listened to one after that. I'm pretty sure that Noonan was one of the guys who had a lot of issues with 3E and said something to the effect of "he couldnt see ever going back to 3E" or maybe it was mearls, I'm not sure. 

Either way I don't see him as someone who would design for Pathfinder or anything 3E related. Honestly I couldnt see supporting anything that he would write for anything 3E related. I'd also guess that the 4E fans here wouldn't either...

Unless you were talking about him writing for something not D&D related...


----------



## joethelawyer

Herremann the Wise said:


> The following analogy may be disturbingly appropriate. In Australia here where most farmers have to regularly deal with significant drought issues, the culling of some of your cattle is unfortuantely necessary. However, in this process a farmer will never touch their breeding stock unless they absolutely have to. Have WotC cut into their "breeding stock" in their thinning of the herd? I can't help but feel that they have (but that is very much from a fan-based but ultimately uninformed point of view).
> 
> Best Regards
> Herremann the Wise





good analogy.

And true what Darrin said, who said they would write for 4e? If a company canned me, call me vindictive, but the last thing I would do is produce something that helps their bottom line in any way.  Pathfinder, C&C, and many other OGL options await.


----------



## gribble

Brown Jenkin said:


> It seems to me that these attempts to flatten the revenue stream have not worked out so far.



That's a very good point. So maybe it's not that the senior management is doing a bad job - they do seem to be trying to become more predictable and avoid boom/bust cycles by smoothing the revenue stream.

They just failed.

Honestly, I'm not sure that this is a better scenario than poor management unfortunately...


----------



## Darrin Drader

ShinHakkaider said:


> Either way I don't see him as someone who would design for Pathfinder or anything 3E related. Honestly I couldnt see supporting anything that he would write for anything 3E related. I'd also guess that the 4E fans here wouldn't either...
> 
> Unless you were talking about him writing for something not D&D related...




There's a lot of room to write in the world of RPGs (one of the reasons I find it so enjoyable), some of which boils down to loads of descriptive text. For example, you could feasibly write a book on a campaign city that is 3/4 text. What little actual game design could come down to 3 or 4 stat blocks and a bunch of shorthand NPCs (ex Dervish McDervish: hp 75; Ftr 8, Drv 3). I suspect that even someone who is sick of 3rd edition design would go for a project like that. 

Another option is to design a new system. I've had several ideas for new systems I think I'd enjoy playing. What is little more than one guy's idea of a cool RPG engine ends up being tomorrow's Savage Worlds or Cortex system.

Bottom line, I think that if he's really interested in continuing to write RPGs, he'll either go for the jobs that pay well or hold personal interest for him, just like the rest of us do.


----------



## Vaeron

Wow... this is the first time the bad economy has actually impacted me or something I enjoy.  It's not surprising, since when people have less money they tend to spend it on food, and gas, and not so much on hobbys.  That WotC is still developing DDI suggests they're doing a lot better than their contemporaries - or maybe that's the REASON for the layoffs.  I can't help but notice an inordinate number were involved with digital services, and maybe expenses have been greater than expected.

To be honest, I couldn't tell you specific things Dave has done but his name stands out in my mind as being connected to a lot of stuff, such as the 4e MM.  Certainly I strongly connect him to 4e due to his presence in podcasts and his DMing of the video podcast.  That level of involvement would seem to make him an unlikely choice for a layoff.

I certainly wish him and his family well, and Jonathan Tweet also.


----------



## SJ

I don't know the real reason and don't care: this whole thing blows. Just like it blew when the layoffs hit around 3e's release.

I can accept that it's true that many buyers don't know who these people are. But I do, and I fully expect I'll miss their presence in future products. RPG games are a hobby of mine, and like many hobbyists I learn things beyond what the impulse buyer may care about, like the designer who created the material I buy. I would be surprised to learn that D&D is bought by consumers who do not consider it their hobby.  

As many have said, I'm looking forward to where they go next, if they do stay in the industry. Some of the best gaming fun I've ever had happened after some brilliant people left WOTC before, I think it could happen again!

Sorry to hear it for all of you.


----------



## scourger

Monte At Home said:


> ...it's hard not to laugh at the shocking and perhaps pitiable ineptitude of a company that makes role playing games that would lay off Jonathan Tweet, very likely the best rpg designer, well, period.




Seriously.  His Omega World d20 was simply brilliant (and brilliantly simple).  I'll look for things he does in the future.


----------



## darkwing

Good luck to those who were laid off and thank you.

Now with that out of the way, I hope Wizards uses the money saved to hire a good technical editor (or editorial team) that can spot and make unambiguous (or force the designers to make unambigous) contradictory or ill defined rules. 

For example, Combat Superiority with it's Opportunity Attack stops movement and Opportunity Attacks happen before the action is finished (ok, so where is this guy actually stopped, halfway out of the adjacent square?). In the "Polearm Gamble" feat, what exactly is meant by "enters a square"? Does shifting count? Does forced movement or teleportation count? Where is the enemy actually stopped when taking into account Combat Superiority and "Opportunity Attacks happen before the action is finished" in the Polearm Gamble feat (halfway into the adjacent square?).

Anyway, yeah, hire a good technical editor.


----------



## GameDaddy

This is a prime example of how gaming and gaming business doesn't mix well. I feel for you recently departed team members, and offer my condolences on this whole situation. I also feel for you folks remaining with WOTC, and the things you'll have to deal with in the near future. 

With that said, revenues are down, on average one to twenty-five percent (1-25%) in just about every industry in the United States at the moment. There's plenty of behind the scenes activity going on everywhere, and a lack of common sense reminiscent of my days on the Florida coast during Hurricane seasons. 

When the great storms approached and the evacuation order was given, people automatically went into a hysteria-trance like state two to three days before the hurricane arrived and remained that way right up until the storm struck. Just a simple trip to Home Depot for some extra supplies was an adventure, what with the crowds competing over lumber, sand, sandbags, and cases of distilled water. I witnessed heated exchanges and some fistfights over these mundane items. It was a sight to behold. 

So too, with the current economic crisis, only now the folks are fighting over money plain and simple. The Fed has printed more extra money and put that into circulation. More in the last three months than they have at any time in recent memory. The inevitable result of a rapid increase in the money supply is an inflationary backlash as the currency is devalued by the natural order of supply and demand. Right now we have seen number one of a vicious one-two punch the economy is fixing to deliver to good Americans everywhere. 

There's never been a better time to start a new company. We all know everything that went wrong already, so there's really no need to ruminate on that much. Ruminating won't improve your lot in life either. 

Executing a carefully designed plan though, complete with some new features like maybe including some real profit-sharing options, a retirement plan that doesn't rely on the goodwill of others, and a plan to keep a reserve for your employees in times of trouble might just be the best decision you'll make, and even if you don't create such a company, merely joining one will suffice. 


For some of you, I'm sure, this is an unplanned detour. Keep your vision of where you wanted to go, and share that with others. People will help you if they can, especially if you can show them a better way. Remember that even if you are the leader, almost 90% of what happens is out of your direct control anyway, So you might as well enjoy the ride, and make it pleasant for others as well. 


Economically, my inquiries have been met with the general opinion that the economy will improve (and rapidly too) starting in the 1st quarter of 2009, and will be noticeably better by summer. At least that's what all the execs say I'm speaking with these days, so get out your business surfboards and get ready to ride the cresting wave, Eh! 


~GameDaddy 
"Managed to attend both Origins and Gencon in 2008! and looking forward to gaming goodness in 2009!"


----------



## burntgerbil

Yes, wizards dropped the ball. They should have had a TON of peripherals ready 2 - 4 weeks before the core books came out or on release day. Game aids - counters, dice, Power Cards, and more should have been made. It sounds like they are still in the works - don't fault them for that. 

Bottom line is : If you like your game and like new things for it, let them know with your wallet. Buy their products. They need that revenue to make more cool things for your game. I know money is tough right now for everyone - but please - purchase the product you want to use to keep them afloat and keep our hobby alive.


----------



## jinnetics

Brown Jenkin said:


> So how do we punish them? Should we spend more money on their products, because that seems more like a reward.




Talented workers in all industries are dropping left and right. If you boycott because someone is laying people off, then you won't be a consumer of anything.


----------



## Zil

Umbran said:


> No offense, Monte, but I think perhaps you underestimate the impact of current economic events on business.




I always thought the conventional wisdom was that games were somewhat cushioned from economic downturns because they are a relatively inexpensive form of entertainment and escape from the economic gloom.   

Second, we've been lead to believe that 4E was selling well.  Why the cuts to the RPG section then?

And third, I'm curious if these cuts were part of a general Hasbro workforce reduction and this was WoTC trying to meet their cutback quota?

Finally, I can certainly understand where Monte is arguing from.  I'm seeing a similar lack of appreciation for expertise in the organization that I work for and we're losing a large amount of expertise due to indifference as I see most of those around me losing their employment ... and we maintain and develop critical computer systems whose failure can mean losing lives. A lot of organizations simply fail to appreciate expertise and instead reduce everything down to a numbers game.


----------



## Friadoc

Kid Charlemagne said:


> On the other hand, anyone who signed on with WoTC for the 4E ramp up _had_ to realize that fewer people were going to be needed after the launch, and planned accordingly.




Definitely true, or at least had to understand the potential for it, after the previous histories with the 3e and 3.5e layoffs.

Of course, it is just as reasonable to assume that there was going to be some Modern or SciFi ramp up, too, even though, at the moment, that seems less likely.


----------



## Vaeron

Zil said:


> I always thought the conventional wisdom was that games were somewhat cushioned from economic downturns because they are a relatively inexpensive form of entertainment and escape from the economic gloom.
> 
> Second, we've been lead to believe that 4E was selling well.  Why the cuts to the RPG section then?




You have it exactly backwards.  Non-essentials are the FIRST thing people cut out of their budget.  During a recession people spend their money on things like food, or rent, or mortgage, or clothing, or electricity, or gas.  But the fact that WotC isn't in congress begging for $700 billion like the banks, or threatening to go out of business and lay off thousands upon thousands of employees like the car industry, suggests they're doing much much better by comparison.


----------



## justanobody

Vaeron said:


> But the fact that WotC isn't in congress begging for $700 billion like the banks, or threatening to go out of business and lay off thousands upon thousands of employees like the car industry, suggests they're doing much much better by comparison.




I think it just shows that WotC is a bit more mature to not beg for money for screwing up but taking responsibility for their actions by trying to make the money themselves. The car industry is a crock to ask for money, and the banks shouldn't have been given anything the people should have.

WotC is however asking for more from people in the cost of things that should/could be much lower.


----------



## Pramas

Piratecat said:


> Major layoffs during the 3e era created some award-winning game companies: Green Ronin, Malhavoc Games, and quite a few more. I can only hope that layoffs during the 4e era do the same.




I started Green Ronin early in 2000 when I was still working at WotC actually. I was laid off in 2002 and only then stepped into doing GR full time.


----------



## Staffan

Vaeron said:


> You have it exactly backwards.  Non-essentials are the FIRST thing people cut out of their budget.  During a recession people spend their money on things like food, or rent, or mortgage, or clothing, or electricity, or gas.



From what I understand, entertainment and luxuries in general take a hit during a downturn. But *within* the entertainment category, games do relatively well because of their high fun/price ratio. For example, the new edition of Settlers of Catan has an MSRP of $42. That's the cost of what, 3 or 4 movie tickets (not sure what movie tickets cost in the USA)? You'll get a lot more fun-hours out of buying Settlers than out of going to the movies.


----------



## Najo

My condolences to all of the fine people WOTC laid off. You all have done incredible work over the years and we hope to hear soon what your new plans are. This is a terrible time both of the year and during the economic crisis and our blessings are with you and your families. 

As for the economy, the worse thing people can do right now is stop spending money. Typically, when recessions occur it causes a panic and people stop spending. Then the recession worsens, and its a downward spiral from there. Which means more spending cuts and company layoffs. 

The main issue right now is the housing market, which is then hitting the credit and banking systems, which in turn is hurting Wall Street. The housing and banking is the first thing the new administration is correcting. If you are still employed and your monthly expenses are uneffected so far, then go about business as usual or you will make the ship sink even faster and cause more company cuts and layoffs before the government can bail us all out.

This effects everyone across the world too, as Amercia's economy direct influences the world economy. Which, to the rest of the world, as our dollar's exchange value drops from the bail out injection, you can get good deals from our exports, which gives us a flush of revenue and then helps everything get running again, which eventually helps your country too. 

Anyrate, terrible news. Hopefully all will turn out well for those fine folk. In the meantime, support your local and global businesses as you have to avoid this sort of terrible things from happening again. 

Peace.


----------



## Najo

Staffan said:


> From what I understand, entertainment and luxuries in general take a hit during a downturn. But *within* the entertainment category, games do relatively well because of their high fun/price ratio. For example, the new edition of Settlers of Catan has an MSRP of $42. That's the cost of what, 3 or 4 movie tickets (not sure what movie tickets cost in the USA)? You'll get a lot more fun-hours out of buying Settlers than out of going to the movies.




Not looking to argue. I always have heard that hobbies and affordable entertainment tend to do better during hard times so people can take their minds off of their troubles. Didn't the movies grow in popularity during the great depression and had people attending theater on a near weekly basis?

I am willing to bet top ten type movies, video games, hobby games and online video rentals are all doing at least pretty good if not fine.


----------



## Faraer

Fenarisk said:


> I'm sorry to break this to you but 99% of the people who buy and use D&D products have no idea who these people are and don't recognize/care about the names.



RPG authors are less respected than they should be because publishers play up brands and play down individual writers and their names, so they aren't dependent on them and can stop paying them with minimal harm to the all-important brands. The ENnies, which list books by publisher rather than author, are complicit in this, and the latest Wizards strategy emphasizing the D&D and Magic brands above all else is likely to worsen it. It's a nasty, manipulative practice that holds down the artistic quality of RPG writing and makes it even harder to earn a living as an RPG writer.







> Consumers purchase a product and don't really notice or need to notice authors or "behind the scenes" people. I've played D&D since 2e and I have no idea who any of these people are, and still don't.



Being happy to buy writing so bland and interchangeable it could have been written by any staff writer and you can't tell the difference isn't something to be proud of. Jonathan Tweet, in particular, is one of the most talented people in roleplaying, and his firing is big news for the field as a whole.


----------



## Mongo1967

Najo said:


> Not looking to argue. I always have heard that hobbies and affordable entertainment tend to do better during hard times so people can take their minds off of their troubles. Didn't the movies grow in popularity during the great depression and had people attending theater on a near weekly basis?
> 
> I am willing to bet top ten type movies, video games, hobby games and online video rentals are all doing at least pretty good if not fine.




My experience, as the owner of a FLGS (in Michigan, no less), is that inexpensive entertainment tends to get hit _less_ during an economic downturn, but it still gets hit. People simply have less discretionary income. Some of the comments here and on the WotC thread include the idea that if 4e were somehow "hot enough," then Wizards could safely ignore the economy. That's simply nonsense. Well-run businesses are always looking ahead, both in terms of obstacles and opportunities.


----------



## Erpegis

So, okay, I know about the crisis, but firing of the one of the chief designers of the new product, regardless of anything, seems like a shot in one's own foot. Pretty suicidal action.


----------



## Najo

Mongo1967 said:


> My experience, as the owner of a FLGS (in Michigan, no less), is that inexpensive entertainment tends to get hit _less_ during an economic downturn, but it still gets hit. People simply have less discretionary income. Some of the comments here and on the WotC thread include the idea that if 4e were somehow "hot enough," then Wizards could safely ignore the economy. That's simply nonsense. Well-run businesses are always looking ahead, both in terms of obstacles and opportunities.




I am a FLGS too, and I can concur most of that. The real issue for game manufacturers right now isn't the game stores and their end customers, its the source materials and distribution costs for those products. With the dollar's value taking a hit and raw goods manufacturers having issues, the cost of production is going up. I think this is one of the factors leading to D&D miniatures game being overhauled (and basically cut from production as we knew it).


----------



## Noumenon

Firing two top designers at least should tell you they're not already working on D&D 4.5...


----------



## xechnao

Brown Jenkin said:


> I know that past editions had a boom/bust cycle over its lifetime in regards to revenue, which also explains the hire/layoff cycle we have seen. I also see what apears to be a level of failure with regards to the new strategy WotC was going with to try to stop that cycle in 4E. WotC made several decisions that were supposed to level the income stream over the life of the product. The core books were intentionally limited in scope with PHBx, MMx, and DMGx coming out every year so that the first 3 books would no longer be considered all that was needed. This would to some extent match the yearly MtG product cycle where new rules/power systems are introduced each year. Then the DDI was also designed on a subscription model so that a consistant revenue stream would be coming in each month. It seems to me that these attempts to flatten the revenue stream have not worked out so far.




 PnP players and fans tend to get engaged in a much more profound level than a collectible card game or a video game. There are 2 options Wotc had to be able to achieve this goal you are talking about. Either lower the level of this aspect of the game and hook people with hype at a successful launch so it builds on momentum, either struggle to achieve the almost impossible task of solidifying a stable development of the most inspiring and invoking material possible in a monthly basis.
 My opinion though is that even if they had achieved to take the best possible advantage of hype and momentum they would still fail in the long run. The majority of D&D customers would not cope with a minis skirmish rpg to the level of investing there their entertainment assets instead of what competition offers such as WoW. Indeed mini games tend to have a smaller overall public that tends to invest more on an individual basis that are hooked to it for reasons even beyond just gaming (collecting, assembling, even painting etch). This is not what D&D is about though. And Gamesworkshop is already the leader here.

But even if they realize this strategy will fail they will not want to drop D&D because of the novels. What I foresee is that the next edition of D&D will try to excell in simulationist and narrativist gameplay rather than gamist. If they manage to maintain the novels interest. OTOH I do not know if the novel business has been doing badly for them lately. If this might be so, I would not be so optimist for the brand from a business perspective. It could probably go on, on a much smaller level -by this I mean cutting on projects and staff and perhaps this is what these layoffs are all about. But then this model in today's market is best suited for lines that attract because of established reasons other than what one expects from D&D (for example a favorite writer or setting). For D&D to maintain and expand its community something different is needed. And what that is I do not honestly know. Perhaps they need to return to the OGL model but then there is the bloat problem they should somehow need to eliminate. How this could be done I still have no idea. Perhaps allow each publisher to publish just a limited number of various products per set period of time -one every month. This way perhaps publishers would invest in quality rather than quantity. Just an idea -most probably a bad one


----------



## D.Shaffer

My condolences go out to anyone who loses their job during the holiday season, ESPECIALLY during this economic downturn.  I hope you guys get back on your feet soon.


----------



## Zil

Vaeron said:


> You have it exactly backwards.  Non-essentials are the FIRST thing people cut out of their budget.  During a recession people spend their money on things like food, or rent, or mortgage, or clothing, or electricity, or gas.  But the fact that WotC isn't in congress begging for $700 billion like the banks, or threatening to go out of business and lay off thousands upon thousands of employees like the car industry, suggests they're doing much much better by comparison.




Oh, I agree that people in difficult straits will certainly focus on the essentials first.  However, if you can meet the essentials of food and shelter, then entertainment (and games) are things that people still spend money on, and in the context of entertainment options, RPG and board games are relatively affordable in comparison.


----------



## Maggan

gribble said:


> And even if they did, as I said previously, when you're offered a permanent position the expectation is that it's _permanent_ and that you'll have until until you're not longer capable or willing to do the job. At least that's what I'd expect




As an employer, I would not be able to offer a position to any applicant that requested a position to be truly permanent.

In Sweden, there were "permanent" positions once, but they went away quite some time ago, to be replaced by "until further notice" positions, which is the most common form of employment here, I believe.

I wouldn't have any expectations that a position at any company would be really permanent in the literal sense. Rather, it would be a position that could be terminated according to the contract signed, by both parties (employer and employee).

/M


----------



## DaveMage

Noumenon said:


> Firing two top designers at least should tell you they're not already working on D&D 4.5...




Andy Collins is still there.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne

Herremann the Wise said:


> Have WotC cut into their "breeding stock" in their thinning of the herd? I can't help but feel that they have (but that is very much from a fan-based but ultimately uninformed point of view).




This kind of came up during the last round of big layoffs - one of the WoTC folks noted how many names were still there - big names that we might not have realized were still designing stuff for them.  I think WoTC will be OK, I'm more concerned about the folks they let go.  I'd love to see Jonathan Tweet and Dave Noonan (BTW, count me as thinking "Noonan the Barbarian" would be an excellent choice for user name) go the route of Green Ronin or Malhavoc and create new D&D-related gaming companies.  I wish them well in whatever venture they choose.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne

joethelawyer said:


> And true what Darrin said, who said they would write for 4e? If a company canned me, call me vindictive, but the last thing I would do is produce something that helps their bottom line in any way.  Pathfinder, C&C, and many other OGL options await.




On the other hand, their expertise with that system would make them some of the best choices to design 3rd party products for it.  The relative lack of 3rd party support means that if someone does it right, they stand to reap big gains.


----------



## Brown Jenkin

Noumenon said:


> Firing two top designers at least should tell you they're not already working on D&D 4.5...




[Conspirasy]Or that they need to get rid of the old gaurd so that they can bring in new people with new ideas who are less resistant to change.[/Conspiracy]

See, you can never stop the conspiracy folks.


----------



## xechnao

Brown Jenkin said:


> [Conspirasy]Or that they need to get rid of the old gaurd so that they can bring in new people with new ideas who are less resistant to change.[/Conspiracy]
> 
> See, you can never stop the conspiracy folks.




For the last 8 years it has been all about the D20 systemt. Where and how are they going to find trustworthy people with trustworthy NEW ideas?


----------



## Noumenon

> Or that they need to get rid of the old gaurd so that they can bring in new people with new ideas who are less resistant to change.




I can imagine that they picked the people who were great at designing paper RPGs, but didn't seem like they'd be any good at designing computer-based RPGs, and got rid of them.  I mean, an electronic subscription D&D would be so much more profitable than one based on _books_.  How can you make money selling books?  They're PDFs in paper cases.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Kid Charlemagne said:


> On the other hand, their expertise with that system would make them some of the best choices to design 3rd party products for it.  The relative lack of 3rd party support means that if someone does it right, they stand to reap big gains.




I would be stunned if Goodman or Paizo were not salivating at the chance to add these names to the credits of their products.


----------



## occam

Brown Jenkin said:


> So how do we punish them? Should we spend more money on their products, because that seems more like a reward.




It's like imposing economic sanctions on a country; they never hurt the people who made the decisions leading to those sanctions. My point is that if your intent is to hurt WotC with a boycott, the first to feel it would be the employees you're claiming to stand up for.


----------



## occam

Friadoc said:


> Second, either make a trip to the Washington State Employment Security Department, or hit their website, and apply, immediately, for your benefits, even if you do not feel you need them just yet. You have paid into it and it is your right to access it, guilt free.




A post full of good advice, including this. If you're laid off, don't fall into the trap of thinking "I'll find another gig soon, I won't need unemployment benefits, and it's a pain in the butt anyway." Especially in an economy like this, it's very easy to find yourself in crisis mode a few weeks or months later, kicking yourself for not filing for unemployment while you're trying to figure out how to pay your bills. File for unemployment right away, even if you don't think you'll need it.

Also, try to view the requirement to record a certain number of job prospects every week as a support system rather than a burden. Looking for a new job is hard, usually harder than an actual job, made worse by emotional and financial stress. The job-search requirements can help instill the self-discipline you'll need to keep going through this difficult process.

As you can tell, lots of people have gone through this before.    Keep your chin up, lean on your friends and family, and good luck!


----------



## Fifth Element

justanobody said:


> I think it just shows that WotC is a bit more mature to not beg for money for screwing up but taking responsibility for their actions by trying to make the money themselves.



Or perhaps WotC would have zero pull with the government? The auto industry employs thousands and thousands of people. The RPG industry just doesn't compare.

Not saying they would be begging if they were much larger, I just don't think it's a realistic comparison.


----------



## Fifth Element

occam said:


> It's like imposing economic sanctions on a country; they never hurt the people who made the decisions leading to those sanctions. My point is that if your intent is to hurt WotC with a boycott, the first to feel it would be the employees you're claiming to stand up for.



That's very true, and it's why boycotts generally don't work against large companies. The people to feel the hit are the non-management employees who get laid off when profits drop, and they had nothing to do with the decision-making to begin with.


----------



## Daniel D. Fox

Given some thought on this subject overnight, I believe this was inevitable. Not only because of the economy, but the push for WotC to reduce costs on material production by moving their share of effort into the digital market. With that in mind, I would not be surprised to see another round of layoffs in early spring. The SG&A alone will justify the cuts.

Digital printing is the 21st century, kiddies. I highly suspect that paper books will not be the majority line item in their gross profits within the next few years.


----------



## billd91

occam said:


> It's like imposing economic sanctions on a country; they never hurt the people who made the decisions leading to those sanctions. My point is that if your intent is to hurt WotC with a boycott, the first to feel it would be the employees you're claiming to stand up for.




There is some truth to this, but to subscribe to it fully ultimately leads to paralysis. Unless you can take your grievance directly to the persons responsible for the decision (and good luck even finding out who to contact, getting their contact information, and actually being heard), there is _nothing_ you can do to hold the company responsible for decisions you consider unethical, immoral, or otherwise wrongheaded.

It's a lot like trying to sue a corporation for liability. It doesn't matter if they were really responsible for a dangerous product that killed your whole family, any settlement you get out of them is passed on to the consumers via price increase or to the employees with layoffs.

But I would submit that it is still worthwhile doing so, voting with your purchasing dollars or suing for real liability. You've got to do something rather than just moan, groan, and protest. It may be that the buzz generated by the protest is the real agent of changing a corporation's decisions, should the publicity become too much or the protest gain too much support for the corporation to risk the extra loss of sales (why else do a lot of corporations impose gag rules in return for settling out of court for civil lawsuits). But it's your commitment to backing it up with personal actions that provides the protest/boycott/whatever with respectibility. People don't respect your talking the talk unless you walk the walk.


----------



## Baz King

Can anyone tell me what products have had Johnathan Tweet's design credits on them in the last couple of years? Genuinely curious, and slightly out of the loop.


----------



## DaveMage

Moniker said:


> I highly suspect that paper books will not be the majority line item in their gross profits within the next few years.




Is it the majority item now?


----------



## Fifth Element

DaveMage said:


> Is it the majority item now?



I've always heard MtG is a bigger part of their business than D&D.


----------



## Daniel D. Fox

DaveMage said:


> Is it the majority item now?




Note that they qualified the layoffs as a "digital consolidation".

I should have been more specific - MtG likely have a very high cost of goods, and D&D as well with the cost of material. Since they're moving towards an online version of Magic and the gametable for Dungeons and Dragons, I believe it's easy to figure out where they want to be in 2009.


----------



## AllisterH

DaveMage said:


> Is it the majority item now?




That's a good point.

Doesn't MTGO now account for something like 35% of MTG sales and it is increasing....


----------



## TerraDave

Mokona said:


> ...
> Reached for comment by ICv2, a WotC spokesperson noted, “Wizards of the Coast consolidated its digital game organizations to streamline execution of digital growth strategies for core brands.”
> 
> Wizards of the Coast President Greg Leeds also weighed in.  “Consolidating internal resources coupled with improved outsourcing allows us to gain efficiencies in executing against our major digital initiatives Magic Online and D&D Insider,” he said.  “Wizards of the Coast is well positioned to maximize future opportunities, including further brand development on digital platforms.  The result of this consolidation is a more streamlined approach to driving core brands.”
> ...




This could most politely be described as dilbertesque.


----------



## rowport

Vaeron said:


> You have it exactly backwards.  Non-essentials are the FIRST thing people cut out of their budget.  During a recession people spend their money on things like food, or rent, or mortgage, or clothing, or electricity, or gas.  But the fact that WotC isn't in congress begging for $700 billion like the banks, or threatening to go out of business and lay off thousands upon thousands of employees like the car industry, suggests they're doing much much better by comparison.




Vaernon-

Not trying to be confronational, but curious; is this conjecture or based on economic data?  My understanding matched Zil's, that low-cost entertainment like movies, games, etc. have lots of staying power in bad economic conditions because folks need the escape.  High-ticket non-essentials like new cars, big televisions, etc. are unquestionably impacted-- you are right about that-- just not sure about the RPG market, since I would describe that in the former category.


----------



## Fifth Element

TerraDave said:


> This could most politely be described as dilbertesque.



Eh, that's pretty standard corporatespeak. It basically means "We decided we had too many full-time people working on the digital stuff, and figured it could be handled just as well with fewer of our staff, supplemented by contractors as needed."

But you can't get your Corporate President license talking like that. They have quotas for "efficiencies", "core brands", and "streamlined", you know.


----------



## Fifth Element

rowport said:


> Not trying to be confronational, but curious; is this conjecture or based on economic data?  My understanding matched Zil's, that low-cost entertainment like movies, games, etc. have lots of staying power in bad economic conditions because folks need the escape.  High-ticket non-essentials like new cars, big televisions, etc. are unquestionably impacted-- you are right about that-- just not sure about the RPG market, since I would describe that in the former category.



I think it makes sense that games would be among the last entertainment items to be cut from the budget. But if the economic downturn is bad enough, they can still be affected.


----------



## DaveMage

TerraDave said:


> This could most politely be described as dilbertesque.





I was thinking the same thing - and chuckling while I read that statement.  

I'm thinking of using his statement in my daily conversation at work, just to annoy people.


----------



## Radiating Gnome

I'll add my tiny voice to the chorus of laments and well wishes for the folks who were laid off.  I'm coming to the conversation far too late to say anything new in terms of my disappointment . . . but that doesn't make it any less deeply felt.  

It's got to be tough for everyone -- obviously mostly for those laid off, but it's no fun for those left behind, who surely can't even comment on the layoffs on boards like this. It's interesting how meeting these folks at cons and listenting to the podcast makes them feel like my friends, people I really know, and how deeply I feel for them all in this situation.  And I'm clearly not alone.  

-j


----------



## mlund

seankreynolds said:


> It depends on what you mean by "have to."
> 
> If your RPG division expected to make $10,000,000 dollars this year, and it now looks like it's "only" going to make $8,000,000 dollars this year, does that mean you "have to" lay off people so your numbers are better?
> 
> If your company expected to make $100,000,000 dollars this year, but screwups with your digital initiative mean that you "only" made $95,000,000, does that mean you "have to" lay off people in other departments so your numbers are better?
> 
> To use a Hasbro example, if your overall revenue is down, and all divisions have negative revenue, and one division (say, Wizards) has positive revenue, does that mean you "have to" make 10% cuts across all divisions (including Wizards, your ONE profitable division), just so your numbers are better?




That really depends on the circumstances.

Hasbro is a publicly traded company. Somewhere on the order of hundreds of thousands to millions of people (thanks to Mutual Funds) have some fractional stake in the company - from individual investments to retirement accounts to educational savings vehicles. Everything Hasbro has on its books is the property of those people - not the management or the employees. Without those assets neither management nor labor can produce revenue. The company has an ethical obligation to put the interests of the shareholders ahead of the personal interests of both management and employees.

This means that you have to be a good steward of your cash flow, statements of net income, and share prices. If that missing $2,000,000 is going to cost your company its credit rating or mark the difference in return on investment between developing D&D and making toaster ovens then you'd *better* make the lay-offs to labor and management necessary to recover that $2M. Similarly, if recovering that $2M keeps you from a hostile board meeting this year but hurts the company's 5-year prospects you have to take your lumps now, not patch the issue just long enough to jump ship!

Violating the trust that thousands of people have put into your company - a trust that impacts their prospects for retirement, college for their children, and providing for their loved ones after they are deceased - is reprehensible when you misuse the funds for an over-seas junket and is likewise reprehensible when you misuse the funds to keep your friends and allies in employment past the time when the company could best employ their services.

- Marty Lund


----------



## xechnao

mlund said:


> is likewise reprehensible when you misuse the funds to keep your friends and allies in employment past the time when the company could best employ their services.
> 
> - Marty Lund



Unfortunately this is the rule, not the exception. 

Moreover you listed some things which sound reasonable but fail to consider the more general picture of a company's side effects to the overall economy. There are individual companies and there is the overall economy: one may in fact have chances to grow in expense of the other. But what it really matters in the long run in not the company but the overall economy.


----------



## DaveMage

mlund said:


> The company has an ethical obligation to put the interests of the shareholders ahead of the personal interests of both management and employees.




That's too vague a statement - even with your claification.

Quality people can very much make the difference between profitibility and failure.  If you can't attract a quality workforce due to poor labor relations, you're likely doomed to fail - or at least not realize the profit potential you otherwise could have made.

By slicing such a large chunk of good people, a company risks losing those they still have, as they too will see the "writing on the wall". 

To use a potential example (and I have no idea if this is actually happening at WotC, but something similar could), if I'm Bruce Cordell (3E Psionics Guru), and I'm tasked with writing Psionics for 4E, and that book hasn't yet been completed, I have to wonder if upon its completion that I'm now suddenly "expendable".  If so, I'm looking for a new job, like, NOW.  Should Bruce leave before the book is significantly done, and someone takes over who screws it up, the book will be panned, sales will fall, and some of the "savings" that were realized with the job cuts is now lost.

Hopefully this isn't the case, but it wouldn't surprise me.


----------



## occam

billd91 said:


> There is some truth to this, but to subscribe to it fully ultimately leads to paralysis. Unless you can take your grievance directly to the persons responsible for the decision (and good luck even finding out who to contact, getting their contact information, and actually being heard), there is _nothing_ you can do to hold the company responsible for decisions you consider unethical, immoral, or otherwise wrongheaded.




Boycotting a company for unethical or immoral behavior, or because they make shoddy products, or some other similar reason makes sense. I still don't buy from Exxon or Microsoft, for example. (Not that I have any illusions as to the effect of that, or the relative "goodness" of competing oil producers, for example.) But boycotting a company because they laid people off, with the intent that they will lose money and thus be forced to lay more people off... Wha??


----------



## Mark

rowport said:


> Vaernon-
> 
> Not trying to be confronational, but curious; is this conjecture or based on economic data?  My understanding matched Zil's, that low-cost entertainment like movies, games, etc. have lots of staying power in bad economic conditions because folks need the escape.  High-ticket non-essentials like new cars, big televisions, etc. are unquestionably impacted-- you are right about that-- just not sure about the RPG market, since I would describe that in the former category.





I think that the comparisons of such are often overblown since any year someone purchases a new car they almost undoubtedly would be hardpressed to spend the same kind of money on movies, games and all forms of entertainment of that level combined.  Whereas while some might continue to play games, certainly anyone with less money can also only spend less money, whether that be on games or movies or anything.  The difference being that it is easier to see when people are not buying cars or televisions, and one could make the assertion that what little they spend is on smaller ticket items, but if people are not buying movies then one might still assert that they are buying small ticket items though in a different area.  It is also harder to get hard numbers in industries where many companies are privately owned.


----------



## billd91

occam said:


> Boycotting a company for unethical or immoral behavior, or because they make shoddy products, or some other similar reason makes sense. I still don't buy from Exxon or Microsoft, for example. (Not that I have any illusions as to the effect of that, or the relative "goodness" of competing oil producers, for example.) But boycotting a company because they laid people off, with the intent that they will lose money and thus be forced to lay more people off... Wha??




Ethics, morality, and wrongheaded decisions are typically subjective, particularly when you consider that there are competing ethical and moral compasses for just about any situation.

Now, I might consider a major round of layoffs right before the holiday season (and taking away the laid-off employees' expectations of income from the company just when they are seeing a spike in their expenses) to be of questionable moral virtue. If that's true, wouldn't it make sense to boycott them for doing so?


----------



## darjr

David Noonan was the face of the D&D podcast and I think it was Johnathan Tweet who wrote the bonus tools, or was primarily responsible for their creation. Digital guys both.

bonus tools - Wizards Community


----------



## HolyGrenadeFrenzy

Well, after giving 4th Edition a go and definately gaining an opinion myself on the matter, I would have to say that 4e is not doing as well as the company planned.

The claims of,"It will never change!", does not bode well for the game either.

Most gamers I have seen seem to be highly disappointed to just straight out turned off and they continue to purchase 3.5 matterial and even produce more while ignoring the current product as anything more than a honey pot for the older versions.

Perhaps 5th edition will be drastically different in a more positive directio for WotC and Hasbro.....not to mention the rest of the D&D community.

Now, we can protect 4th edition or we can see its short comings and look at what was scratched that needs reinterated for a new edition but.....players will continue to just use the new system as a source book if they are unhappy with it.

You would think that a gaming company would be familar with this trend that players will use just about anything for the first couple steps of the creative process and then reinterate what works for them without permission and without doubt when it suits them.

White Wolf has been learning about this too, over the past couple years, with the effects their new systems had on their consumer market.

Getting a few new people to buy your game because of the streamlining to be like WoW only works until you see the drop in purchasing power that you get when your core and old timers give you precious little until you improve your mistakes.

Sure, I will collect the current line but.....not each of my players will and they are GMs, DMs and Storytellers all.

Understanding this is hugely important in a Role Playing Game Company.

Only lifers really see it for what it is....although they don't completely agree on everything, they do agree on many things.

Col_Playdoh was right about a skill based system, in my opinion, and the 3.5 was doing quite well to lean in that direction.  The problem isn't that the current edition is not tight enough but instead a little too tight where it should be less rigid.  I mean some of the methods could be done by different means and going for a video gaming mechanic type system just offends many players.

Myself, using many, many systems over the years do not believe any system is completely superior and each has its benefits and weaknesses yet....a solid RPG system should have an adaptive system envelope inherently core to any system so you can alter and upgrade to something better.

In other words, I may use a steel trap from time to time but I do not want to limit my gaming expereince to things that many concider akin to a steel trap.  More options yet a comprehensive system is a tall order sometimes, I realize.

Short cutting things is often not the answer that gamers want or need for example.  Now I know that many call this nerfing or dumbing down but in essence it just looks like a short cut that didn't work out too well.

Personally, I believe that everyone can learn and benefit much from the current edition, regardless of what system you use.  I just hope that 5th edition is much improved for us.


----------



## Mokona

mlund said:


> Violating the trust that thousands of people have put into your company - a trust that impacts their prospects for retirement, college for their children, and providing for their loved ones after they are deceased - is reprehensible when you misuse the funds...to keep your friends and allies in employment past the time when the company could best employ their services.



Very well said.

In fact, cowardly management that refuses to adjust their workforce is stealing money from little old ladies in order to protect their image from angry fans.

Instead of letting people go one at a time it appears that *Wizards of the Coast* clings to employees until the last second and then makes big cuts all at once.  I daresay that *Wizards of the Coast* management could do things differently but they haven't and tend to have layoffs at the end of the fiscal year (December).

If losing Dave Noonan instead of cutting a vice president is worse for the long run profit of the company then that is also stealing from little old ladies who own shares in Hasbro.  If foolish management leads to lower value of the company because fans are peeved at layoffs then that is also misuse of shareholder interests.


----------



## occam

billd91 said:


> Now, I might consider a major round of layoffs right before the holiday season (and taking away the laid-off employees' expectations of income from the company just when they are seeing a spike in their expenses) to be of questionable moral virtue. If that's true, wouldn't it make sense to boycott them for doing so?




Not if your goal is to pressure the company into preventing further layoffs.


----------



## Jonathan Tweet

*thanks for the kind words*

Thanks for all the kind words and thoughts. Personally, I'm in good shape financially and emotionally. Wizards has offered me a generous severance package, things are in good shape on the home front, and work hasn't exactly been wine and roses for me lately. No one needs to worry about me.

The next thing I plan to do is nothing, and when I'm through doing that I'll look around for something new. Maybe RPGs, maybe games of some other stripe, maybe something entirely different.

Someone asked what I've been doing in the last however many years, so here's a list: Chainmail (metal D&D minis game), D&D Minis, Star Wars Minis, Axis & Allies Minis, Omega World, beginner products for Magic, and various unpublished new business efforts. I've been involved with D&DI for a little over a year, led the Bonus Tools effort, and recently started working on the Compendium.

-Jonathan


----------



## seankreynolds

Moniker said:


> Given some thought on this subject overnight, I believe this was inevitable. Not only because of the economy, but the push for WotC to reduce costs on material production by moving their share of effort into the digital market.




No, it was inevitable because Wizards does this *every year around this time* They lay off people, switch to using more freelancers, realize that they need more in-house people to help things run smoothly, hire more in-house people, then have a layoff when your projected budget starts looking wrong. It's a crappy way to run a company, and a crappy way to treat your employees. I have friends there that have been laid off and rehired by Wizards two or more times now ... Wizards just keeps repeating the cycle.

See, Hasbro is a dying company. They don't produce anything new or innovative, they're too "east coast" and set in their "old business" mindset. What they do is find interesting, profitable young companies, buy them, squeeze as much money as they can out of them, crush everything that is unique and innovative about them, and then discard them when they're no longer profitable. As a former Wizards person pointed out to me, Wizards of the Coast (and other Hasbro acquisitions like Galoob) are "chemotherapy" to Hasbro. In a year where every division of Hasbro lost money except for Wizards, Hasbro had a company-wide flat headcount reduction, even for Wizards (still flush with money from Pokemon, Magic, and 3e). Hasbro started "fun alerts" in its daughter companies, pushing the employees to have fun at work (net result: "fun alert" Mr Potato Head posters popped up at the Wizards office), ignoring that people at Wizards were already having fun making great games. So when you see things like these layoffs, it's corporate types saying, "making $8 million profit per year on this brand isn't enough, you have to make $10 million profit," and then *letting go of the people who make your profit* in order to cut costs (i.e., salaries) and give the *appearance* of extra profit. Far too many companies act this way, whether it's cutting benefits, shipping jobs to cheaper workers overseas, etc. ... it looks good on paper in the short term, but 1, 2, 5, or 10 years down the road you look at the ruins of your business and wonder why profits are still down and your employees have no loyalty.



mlund said:


> That really depends on the circumstances.
> Hasbro is a publicly traded company. The company has an ethical obligation to put the interests of the shareholders ahead of the personal interests of both management and employees.




You can be fair and responsible in your treatment of your employees *and* fair and responsible to the financial interests of your investors. You don't have to maximize one at the expense of the other. Netting $8 million every year for the next 10 years is better than netting $10 million this year, $9 million the next, then $8m, etc., all the way down to $1 on the 10th year ($80 million vs. $55 million).

From time to time at TSR people would talk about forming a union of designers and editors. I've heard that Lorraine's response was, "If you form a union, I'll fire you all and replace you with college students happy to do this work for half the pay, or even free." While she could do such a thing, the quality of your products would suffer (much like how the quality of the D&D minis has gone downhill), and that would alienate your customers, and that eventually makes up for the "savings" of hiring cheaper workers. It's stupid and shortsighted.

And to repeat: this is an annual thing for Wizards. And doing this right before the holidays is especially sleazy.



DaveMage said:


> To use a potential example (and I have no idea if this is actually happening at WotC, but something similar could), if I'm Bruce Cordell (3E Psionics Guru), and I'm tasked with writing Psionics for 4E, and that book hasn't yet been completed, I have to wonder if upon its completion that I'm now suddenly "expendable".




You just described the TSR layoffs of late 1996: if you were finished with your project, you were laid off because you weren't needed in the immediate future. So, yes, it happens.


----------



## drothgery

seankreynolds said:


> And to repeat: this is an annual thing for Wizards. And doing this right before the holidays is especially sleazy.




Layoffs right before the holidays are quite commonplace, as is deciding to end indefinite-term contract employee's contracts (I've had both happen to me, for one). Nobody likes it, but companies don't lay off people before the holidays just to be mean; they do it because laying people off early the next year would be considerably more costly.


----------



## xechnao

seankreynolds said:


> From time to time at TSR people would talk about forming a union of designers and editors.




Very interesting. Why isn't there such a thing yet?


----------



## justanobody

Brown Jenkin said:


> See, you can never stop the conspiracy folks.




 The cake is a lie!



Baz King said:


> Can anyone tell me what products have had Johnathan Tweet's design credits on them in the last couple of years? Genuinely curious, and slightly out of the loop.




DDI Bonus tools....


----------



## mudbunny

xechnao said:


> Very interesting. Why isn't there such a thing yet?




Because the person who ends up being the driving force in a plan like this gets known as the person who brought a union into a non-union workplace. That is a big black mark on your reputation that gets you labelled "troublemaker".


----------



## Primal

WotC_Dave said:


> Thanks for the kind words, folks. They mean a great deal. And my wife was reading over my shoulder, and they cheered her up _immensely_.
> 
> I can confirm the essential truth of what's been reported, and I am indeed one of the ones let go today. When you're in the midst of the process, you don't really get a sense of what's going on elsewhere in the building. Thus I didn't know some of the names until I read them here. They're quality people. In a weird way, I'm proud to be among them. (I'd rather be employed, sure, but you take the solace you can at a moment like this.)
> 
> I'll leave the prognosticating and "...but what does this MEAN?!?" stuff to others. I think the game is in good shape--and I think it's in good hands. In my 10 years at Wizards, I survived a lot of these layoffs--including cuts deeper than this. More to the point for you guys, the _game_ survived deeper cuts than this.
> 
> Maybe I didn't say this enough when I was part of "the Man," but the ENWorld community is absolutely terrific. The level of discourse here continues to be top-notch, and there's always an interesting thread sitting right there, begging to be read. But if you're already a regular here, you've already figured that out, huh?
> 
> --David Noonan, who should probably get a new user name.




Dave,

you could always apply for a job at Paizo, right? They've hired a lot of talented designers and freelancers WoTC has laid off. The only caveat would be to "refocus" your thinking and Design Fu from 4E to Pathfinder RPG. 

When I heard of this, I was shocked that you and Jonathan (Tweet) were on that list. I mean, you guys have done a lot for WoTC and 4E -- I've kind of pictured you two as being almost Lead Designers yourselves. And, even though I don't like 4E, I've come to respect you guys over the years as very talented designers. 

Anyway, best of luck to the both of you in the future!  

_(*Primal teleports back to the Paizo forums*)_


----------



## themaxx

*Thanks*

Great job Dave, I appreciate your work and look forward to following your output wherever you end up next.


----------



## Fifth Element

seankreynolds said:


> No, it was inevitable because Wizards does this *every year around this time* They lay off people, switch to using more freelancers, realize that they need more in-house people to help things run smoothly, hire more in-house people, then have a layoff when your projected budget starts looking wrong. It's a crappy way to run a company, and a crappy way to treat your employees. I have friends there that have been laid off and rehired by Wizards two or more times now ... Wizards just keeps repeating the cycle.
> 
> See, Hasbro is a dying company. They don't produce anything new or innovative, they're too "east coast" and set in their "old business" mindset. What they do is find interesting, profitable young companies, buy them, squeeze as much money as they can out of them, crush everything that is unique and innovative about them, and then discard them when they're no longer profitable. As a former Wizards person pointed out to me, Wizards of the Coast (and other Hasbro acquisitions like Galoob) are "chemotherapy" to Hasbro. In a year where every division of Hasbro lost money except for Wizards, Hasbro had a company-wide flat headcount reduction, even for Wizards (still flush with money from Pokemon, Magic, and 3e). Hasbro started "fun alerts" in its daughter companies, pushing the employees to have fun at work (net result: "fun alert" Mr Potato Head posters popped up at the Wizards office), ignoring that people at Wizards were already having fun making great games. So when you see things like these layoffs, it's corporate types saying, "making $8 million profit per year on this brand isn't enough, you have to make $10 million profit," and then *letting go of the people who make your profit* in order to cut costs (i.e., salaries) and give the *appearance* of extra profit. Far too many companies act this way, whether it's cutting benefits, shipping jobs to cheaper workers overseas, etc. ... it looks good on paper in the short term, but 1, 2, 5, or 10 years down the road you look at the ruins of your business and wonder why profits are still down and your employees have no loyalty.



Now this here? There is some evidence in here that WotC *is* a badly run company, though it seems some of it comes trickle-down from Hasbro. Assuming this isn't all cynical misrepresentations, which I doubt it is.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

seankreynolds said:


> See, Hasbro is a dying company.






			
				Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Assuming this isn't all cynical misrepresentations, which I doubt it is.




CEO of the Year.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne

Good luck on future endeavors, Jonathan!

(and thanks for leading the bonus tools effort, as I've found those to be highly useful, and made sure to download them all so as to make sure that I'd have them going forward if Wizards ever decided to get rid of the 3.5 era stuff...)


----------



## davethegame

Jonathan Tweet said:


> Thanks for all the kind words and thoughts. Personally, I'm in good shape financially and emotionally. Wizards has offered me a generous severance package, things are in good shape on the home front, and work hasn't exactly been wine and roses for me lately. No one needs to worry about me.
> 
> The next thing I plan to do is nothing, and when I'm through doing that I'll look around for something new. Maybe RPGs, maybe games of some other stripe, maybe something entirely different.
> 
> Someone asked what I've been doing in the last however many years, so here's a list: Chainmail (metal D&D minis game), D&D Minis, Star Wars Minis, Axis & Allies Minis, Omega World, beginner products for Magic, and various unpublished new business efforts. I've been involved with D&DI for a little over a year, led the Bonus Tools effort, and recently started working on the Compendium.
> 
> -Jonathan




Jonathan, 

Very good to hear that you're going to do well. I think it should be obvious from the out-pouring from the fans and your peers that you are the man. So here's one person saying that I hope you don't stay away from RPGs too long: I'd love to see the next Ars Magica/Over the Edge/Everway/etc!


----------



## billd91

Wulf Ratbane said:


> CEO of the Year.




MarketWatch has it's standards and if they think a CEO retreading a lot of nostalgia brands (including making moves of them... again) is worth recognizing, more power to them.

I notice that Goldner did a lot of work out of Tiger Electronics, a company snapped up by Hasbro shortly before WotC. An example of the chemotherapy SKR commented about?


----------



## gribble

Maggan said:


> As an employer, I would not be able to offer a position to any applicant that requested a position to be truly permanent.



Well, it seems workplace rules are very different in Sweden than New Zealand (and other countries I've worked in, although I have heard that NZ is particularly pro-employee). 

Also, there may be a terminology misunderstanding. I'm using permanent to mean "long term employee", as opposed to contractor which usually means someone who isn't considered an employee of the company and is only working for the company for a defined period and/or project.

Regardless - I wasn't trying to imply that someone offered a permanent position should expect a guarantee that the position would last _forever_, or seek any kind of contractual guarantee from a company (I doubt any company would be foolish enough to agree to something like that).

Rather, IME at least, the difference between a contract and permanent position is that when offered a permanent position the employee should be able to reasonably expect that the company intends for that position to be required long-term, and that the position isn't a temporary one or one related to a specific (short-medium term) project. Unless, of course, the company and employee have agreed to a short-medium term position (which IMO, is really more akin to a contract worker). 

If the above is true, then (barring unforecast disaster), the position should exist as long as the employee is willing and capable of performing it... and speaking for myself, I'd certainly do a bit of research to ensure that the company was planning growth and could reasonably support the position it was offering me long-term. 

So yes, I guess I would go into that position expecting to hold the position as long as I was willing and capable of doing it, as I expect most people in a similar position would.


----------



## xechnao

mudbunny said:


> Because the person who ends up being the driving force in a plan like this gets known as the person who brought a union into a non-union workplace. That is a big black mark on your reputation that gets you labelled "troublemaker".



Man when this world is going to fix its wrongs? Generations long propaganda I guess..
These men should be labelled as "heroes".


----------



## malraux

billd91 said:


> MarketWatch has it's standards and if they think a CEO retreading a lot of nostalgia brands (including making moves of them... again) is worth recognizing, more power to them.
> 
> I notice that Goldner did a lot of work out of Tiger Electronics, a company snapped up by Hasbro shortly before WotC. An example of the chemotherapy SKR commented about?




I dunno, a quick glance at the financials of HAS show that its doing ok.  Heck, from 2001 (ie the last recession), it looks like the dividind has either stayed the same or gone up, from 3c to 20c.  I'm too lazy to dig deeper, but I don't see a lot of evidence in the numbers to justify SKR's claim.


----------



## Mistwell

xechnao said:


> Man when this world is going to fix its wrongs? Generations long propaganda I guess..
> These men should be labelled as "heroes".




Can we not turn this thread into a unions vs. non-unions debate? We have CircvsMaximvs for that!


----------



## xechnao

Mistwell said:


> Can we not turn this thread into a unions vs. non-unions debate? We have CircvsMaximvs for that!




Ahh, I see you wanted to say it is a debateable question? Nevermind, my post above already gets you covered whatever. 
So be it for me: nothing more to say


----------



## Zaruthustran

Wulf Ratbane said:


> CEO of the Year.




Good find, Wulf! 

Honestly, he sounds like a smart guy. And I'm pleasantly surprised that he's a gamer and a Star Wars nerd. 

And he knows how to make things happen in Hollywood, apparently. Who knows? Maybe with him at the reins, we'll finally get a decent D&D movie.


----------



## Fifth Element

Wulf Ratbane said:


> CEO of the Year.



Is that something like the awards given to mutual fund managers? You know, the ones where the next year they underperform the market and are quietly forgotten?

Anyway, one man does not a management team make. Even if he is the CEO.


----------



## seankreynolds

drothgery said:


> Layoffs right before the holidays are quite commonplace, as is deciding to end indefinite-term contract employee's contracts (I've had both happen to me, for one). Nobody likes it, but companies don't lay off people before the holidays just to be mean; they do it because laying people off early the next year would be considerably more costly.




1) Ignoring the human cost of a decision merely for the sake of the numbers is shortsighted and irresponsible.

2) Just because everyone is doing it doesn't mean it's okay.

3) Changing their fiscal year to something other that Jan-Dec means that having these annual layoffs wouldn't happen 3 weeks before Christman.

Then again, smarter management and less slavish adherence to the numbers ("Oh no, we only made $8M when we predicted we'd make $10M, it's like we're losing money, let's lay off people!") would mean they wouldn't have to follow this layoff-contract-hire-layoff cycle. But hey, gotta protect the shareholders, right?


----------



## mlund

gribble said:


> Rather, IME at least, the difference between a contract and permanent position is that when offered a permanent position the employee should be able to reasonably expect that the company intends for that position to be required long-term, and that the position isn't a temporary one or one related to a specific (short-medium term) project. Unless, of course, the company and employee have agreed to a short-medium term position (which IMO, is really more akin to a contract worker).




In the United States, a Contractor is typically simply a worker who is not part of the Payroll of the company that uses his services.

They come in two basic types:

1099 Contractors are self-employed, handling the payroll taxes and withholdings that an employer would set aside for an employee. They have to budget for their own insurances, sick time, and vacations out-of-pocket but get to deduct business expenses related to earning their income.

W2 Contractors are employees of Agencies. The Agency handles their taxes and benefits and cuts their paychecks. The Agency bills the Company that needs the Contractor's services based on an agreed-upon contract between the two companies.
*
Employee-at-will* is the typically non-contractor status for workers at a company. They work at a company as long as the company wants them there. They are paid directly by the company and are part of their company's payroll - including taxes and benefits.

Most Employees-at-will who earn a Salary rather than an Hourly Rate are considered "permanent" employees since their salary is agreed upon on an annual rate. They can still be terminated at any time by their employer.



> If the above is true, then (barring unforecast disaster), the position should exist as long as the employee is willing and capable of performing it... and speaking for myself, I'd certainly do a bit of research to ensure that the company was planning growth and could reasonably support the position it was offering me long-term.



The moment someone else (or something else) comes along who can perform your tasks more ably or at the same level of ability (and I include trustworthiness and experience as relevant components in my definition of ability) but for less money the company should make plans to move you to a different job or lay you off. That's how competition and innovation work. It cuts both ways too - plenty of managers find their way out the door due to HR and Accounting specialist firms out-competing in-house departments. Advances in software have eliminated a lot of middle-managers from various fields over the years, just as machines have reduced the ratio of laborers-to-products in industrial work.



> So yes, I guess I would go into that position expecting to hold the position as long as I was willing and capable of doing it, as I expect most people in a similar position would.



I don't have that expectation. I try and approach each day as if I'm trying to get hired anew rather than just serving time in a position that "belongs" to me. Jobs don't "belong" to employees, just like customers don't "belong" to businesses.



Jonathan Tweet said:


> Thanks for all the kind words and thoughts. Personally, I'm in good shape financially and emotionally. Wizards has offered me a generous severance package, things are in good shape on the home front, and work hasn't exactly been wine and roses for me lately. No one needs to worry about me.




I'm glad to hear this, Mr. Tweet. Thanks for all your outstanding contributions to our games. I look forward to seeing what you come up with next!

- Marty Lund


----------



## Fifth Element

seankreynolds said:


> Then again, smarter management and less slavish adherence to the numbers ("Oh no, we only made $8M when we predicted we'd make $10M, it's like we're losing money, let's lay off people!")



Well, if they could have invested the capital elsewhere and made more than $8 million, it *is* like they're losing money.



seankreynolds said:


> Changing their fiscal year to something other that Jan-Dec means that having these annual layoffs wouldn't happen 3 weeks before Christman.



I don't think that has much to do with it. If they're just trying to reduce costs to make the year-end numbers look better, they wouldn't do it with so little time left in the fiscal year. If you have a December 31 year-end, and you lay people off just before Christmas, that's not going to help your bottom line, especially when you consider the severance.


----------



## mlund

Fifth Element said:


> I don't think that has much to do with it. If they're just trying to reduce costs to make the year-end numbers look better, they wouldn't do it with so little time left in the fiscal year. If you have a December 31 year-end, and you lay people off just before Christmas, that's not going to help your bottom line, especially when you consider the severance.




Indeed. Rather, you'd be better served by keeping the footprint the severance package leaves on your financial statements off the books for the next fiscal year. Coming up short in 2008 is a problem. Not having a good financial projection for 2009, however, compounds the problem immensely. Publicly traded companies have a lot riding on their annual fiscal reports. A poorly designed fiscal report can cause massive short-term capital losses for your shareholders just due to stock prices. Shareholders (especially Income and Fix-Income investors) hate massive short-term screw-ups in stock prices.

- Marty Lund


----------



## gribble

mlund said:


> The moment someone else (or something else) comes along who can perform your tasks more ably or at the same level of ability (and I include trustworthiness and experience as relevant components in my definition of ability) but for less money the company should make plans to move you to a different job or lay you off.



I agree 100%. I didn't think this needed to be stated. I certainly wouldn't be going into a position thinking there was someone else who could do the job better than I could, and if it was later brought to my attention that someone else could do my job better than I could, I wouldn't be willing to try and keep it - I'd be finding something (inside the company or elsewhere) more suited to my talents.



mlund said:


> I try and approach each day as if I'm trying to get hired anew rather than just serving time in a position that "belongs" to me.



As do I. Frankly, as far as I'm concerned anyone just "serving time" isn't really willing or capable of doing their job anymore, as I can't think of many (if any) jobs where it's a core requirement of the position...

Again, I didn't think it needed to be stated that striving to do the best job you can and being passionate about what you're doing were prerequisites for being considered capable in your job.


----------



## seankreynolds

Fifth Element said:


> I don't think that has much to do with it. If they're just trying to reduce costs to make the year-end numbers look better, they wouldn't do it with so little time left in the fiscal year. If you have a December 31 year-end, and you lay people off just before Christmas, that's not going to help your bottom line, especially when you consider the severance.




So we're in agreement that the timing is poor, as well as stupid.


----------



## Fifth Element

seankreynolds said:


> So we're in agreement that the timing is poor, as well as stupid.



If that's the reason, then yes. If they're doing it just to improve the financials, they did a poor job of it.


----------



## Scribble

seankreynolds said:


> 3) Changing their fiscal year to something other that Jan-Dec means that having these annual layoffs wouldn't happen 3 weeks before Christman.




That would be kind of tough to do though. Aren't the pretty much universal accounting quarters? Wouldn't that mean all businesses would then have to change to account for Christmas?

Layoffs suck, and I agree it's a crappy way to make the numbers work, but I'm not sure changing the fiscal quarters would be all that easy...


----------



## Zil

Fifth Element said:


> Well, if they could have invested the capital elsewhere and made more than $8 million, it *is* like they're losing money.



Ah, those opportunity costs.  Note though that these are not real costs.   The really important thing to look at is the ROI.   If you meet an acceptable return on investment, you really should be fine.  

If you are talking shifting capital elsewhere, you need to look at the cost of closing down whatever projects/product lines/plants you are shifting the capital away from.  

You also should be considering what you are doing towards longer term profitability, but sadly the business world often does not look all that far into the future, especially if the main concern is maximizing short term shareholder profit (or manipulation of share prices which has been the downfall of a number of companies over the past decade). 



> I don't think that has much to do with it. If they're just trying to reduce costs to make the year-end numbers look better, they wouldn't do it with so little time left in the fiscal year. If you have a December 31 year-end, and you lay people off just before Christmas, that's not going to help your bottom line, especially when you consider the severance.




When your fiscal year ends and begins and ends has a huge impact on all manner of decisions in any large corporate or government organization.   You see all sorts of things ending at fiscal year end including employee terms, projects, etc.   You also see very interesting spending patterns that are directly related to where you are in the year cycle.   

In my organization, we typically have a spending flurry in January and February and then things get extremely tight from March through June.   This is directly related to our fiscal year and the associated budgeting process.  Contracts and projects almost always end March 31st.  Our FY runs April through March.  The cycle repeats itself over and over again at the same times, year after year.


----------



## Fifth Element

Scribble said:


> That would be kind of tough to do though. Aren't the pretty much universal accounting quarters? Wouldn't that mean all businesses would then have to change to account for Christmas?
> 
> Layoffs suck, and I agree it's a crappy way to make the numbers work, but I'm not sure changing the fiscal quarters would be all that easy...



I think most public companies have a March, June, September or December year-end, so their quarters align. But there's no rule dictating when the year-end will be. Picking one at random, Hewlett Packard has an October year-end.

Edit: Though actually changing your year-end once it's established can be difficult. In Canada at least, the tax authority has to approve it (and you need business reasons to do so, not just "I want to change it"), and presumably securities regulators would have to approve as well.


----------



## Fifth Element

Zil said:


> Ah, those opportunity costs.  Note though that these are not real costs.   The really important thing to look at is the ROI.   If you meet an acceptable return on investment, you really should be fine.



They're not real in the sense they're not cash payouts, but they are real costs. As for ROI, that's just a calculation based on profit and capital. So in SKR's example, in reality they wouldn't be saying "we expect $10 million profit", they'd be saying "we expect 15% ROI" or what have you. Falling short on the profit means you'll fall short on your ROI, unless it was accompanied by a reduction in capital as well.



Zil said:


> If you are talking shifting capital elsewhere, you need to look at the cost of closing down whatever projects/product lines/plants you are shifting the capital away from.



Indeed. I don't think we need to get into the details, I was just pointing out a basic idea of how business profits are evaluated.


----------



## Plane Sailing

mlund said:


> Violating the trust that thousands of people have put into your company - a trust that impacts their prospects for retirement, college for their children, and providing for their loved ones after they are deceased - is reprehensible when you misuse the funds for an over-seas junket and is likewise reprehensible when you misuse the funds to keep your friends and allies in employment past the time when the company could best employ their services.




I may be an old cynic, but I don't think that comes into it for a second for most execs in publicly funded companies. I cynically think that most of them want to make sure their own job is safe and their earnings increase. Shareholders only become a concern if there is reason for a significant enough bloc of them to get together and vote on an issue in a way you don't want.

Is that too cynical?


----------



## scourger

Jonathan Tweet said:


> Thanks for all the kind words and thoughts. Personally, I'm in good shape financially and emotionally. Wizards has offered me a generous severance package, things are in good shape on the home front, and work hasn't exactly been wine and roses for me lately. No one needs to worry about me.




That's a classy response denoting a very positive attitude.


----------



## scourger

Wulf Ratbane said:


> CEO of the Year.




That article is an interesting read.  Thanks for posting it.


----------



## Roland55

Plane Sailing said:


> I may be an old cynic, but I don't think that comes into it for a second for most execs in publicly funded companies. I cynically think that most of them want to make sure their own job is safe and their earnings increase. Shareholders only become a concern if there is reason for a significant enough bloc of them to get together and vote on an issue in a way you don't want.
> 
> Is that too cynical?




No.  No, it's not.

I've made the same observation many times over the decades.


----------



## Fifth Element

Plane Sailing said:


> I may be an old cynic, but I don't think that comes into it for a second for most execs in publicly funded companies. I cynically think that most of them want to make sure their own job is safe and their earnings increase. Shareholders only become a concern if there is reason for a significant enough bloc of them to get together and vote on an issue in a way you don't want.
> 
> Is that too cynical?



Probably a bit.

But not much.


----------



## gribble

Plane Sailing said:


> I may be an old cynic, but I don't think that comes into it for a second for most execs in publicly funded companies. I cynically think that most of them want to make sure their own job is safe and their earnings increase.



There is a reason why most executive packages contain an not inconsiderable proportion of stock (or options) in the company. Making what's good for the shareholders also good for the execs helps to limit this sort of behaviour...


----------



## ruemere

Wulf Ratbane said:


> CEO of the Year.




Please, do not draw conclusions from this article. The tone and content is typical for glowing marketing spiel, focusing on successes and avoiding any negativity.

For example, there is no mention of aggressive policy against smaller companies, severing ties with established business partners or relegating production to China.

Note the year please:







> ]Toys of Misery 2004
> A Joint Report by National Labor Committee and China Labor Watch
> _February 2004_
> National Labor Committee




Note the year (bold) in Hasbro's own FAQ:







> *What is Hasbro’s response to claims of sweatshop conditions in toy factories?*
> Hasbro takes manufacturing ethics very seriously and we have had a program in place to monitor and improve workplace conditions *since the early 1990s*. [...]




Note the year again please: Increasing production costs


> Hasbro's Chinese suppliers to shift inland
> 14 Feb 2008
> As costs continue to increase, Hasbro, the world's second-largest toymaker, believes that its China-based suppliers are gradually moving inland from the coastal industrial regions.




Conclusion: Hasbro policy on using cheap labor did not change since 2004, while their ethics took a hit at least twice since implemented in 1990s.

If you google more, you'll find about factory workers in China rebelling, removal from the FTSE4Good Index series (which encourages investment in socially responsible companies, as a result of failing to satisfy supply chain labor standards), another report on worker conditions and possibly more.

I think I am going to agree with Sean K. Reynolds and Monte Cook on this.

Regards,
Ruemere


----------



## mxyzplk

Jonathan Tweet said:


> Thanks for all the kind words and thoughts. Personally, I'm in good shape financially and emotionally. Wizards has offered me a generous severance package, things are in good shape on the home front, and work hasn't exactly been wine and roses for me lately. No one needs to worry about me.
> 
> The next thing I plan to do is nothing, and when I'm through doing that I'll look around for something new. Maybe RPGs, maybe games of some other stripe, maybe something entirely different.




Good luck.  Add me to the list of people who want to see you back and making more stuff like OtE!


----------



## justanobody

Zaruthustran said:


> And he knows how to make things happen in Hollywood, apparently. Who knows? Maybe with him at the reins, we'll finally get a decent D&D movie.




"Thus sang Zarathustra."

But I think your singing may fall on deaf ears, or any script will be written to 4th edition and alienate many people that don't play 4th and give the movie bad reviews because it acts so little like D&D with Magic Missiles being thrown about at everything under the sun, and the status effects from the powers not translating well to an actual movie as the game tries to emulate a more cinematic experience.

I vote Dave Noonan to play the Rakshasa!


ruemere said:


> Conclusion: Hasbro policy on using cheap labor did not change since 2004, while their ethics took a hit at least twice since implemented in 1990s.




I am pretty sure they use sweatshop for Hasbro products, because that is pretty much all China has devolved into.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne

Some of this conversation has steered a little close to the "no politics" rule.  So far, so good, but just keep that in mind when talking about the business aspects.  That may make it tough in some ways to make your point, but them's the rules.

-Kid C, EN World Mod


----------



## Delta

gribble said:


> There is a reason why most executive packages contain an not inconsiderable proportion of stock (or options) in the company. Making what's good for the shareholders also good for the execs helps to limit this sort of behaviour...




That was the intent, but many current analysts see it as doing exactly the opposite; i.e., that it further encourages short-term profits (until executives can sell stock) at the price of long-term corporate health. From the New Yorker "World of Business":



> The most insidious aspect of executive stock options is that-especially in tough times-they give senior managers a strong incentive to mislead investors about the true condition of their companies...




http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2002/09/23/020923fa_fact_cassidy


----------



## gribble

Delta said:


> That was the intent, but many current analysts see it as doing exactly the opposite



Interesting read - thanks for the link.


----------



## Fifth Element

Delta said:


> That was the intent, but many current analysts see it as doing exactly the opposite; i.e., that it further encourages short-term profits (until executives can sell stock) at the price of long-term corporate health. From the New Yorker "World of Business":



This. Very much this. Nice in theory, but it doesn't work that way in reality.


----------



## Harneloot

Kid Charlemagne said:


> Some of this conversation has steered a little close to the "no politics" rule.  So far, so good, but just keep that in mind when talking about the business aspects.  That may make it tough in some ways to make your point, but them's the rules.
> 
> -Kid C, EN World Mod




Or is this simply the ENWorld-in-bed-with-Wotc rule?


----------



## Umbran

Harneloot said:


> Or is this simply the ENWorld-in-bed-with-Wotc rule?





For you, just the "saying something insulting as talkback to a mod" rule.  You won't be posting to this thread anymore.

Please, folks.  Chill.


----------



## Hussar

It's really a shame when a good thread, simply expressing care and concern for some of the notable names in the industry devolves into what got expressed above me.


----------



## jinnetics

ruemere said:


> If you google more, you'll find about factory workers in China rebelling, removal from the FTSE4Good Index series (which encourages investment in socially responsible companies, as a result of failing to satisfy supply chain labor standards), another report on worker conditions and possibly more.




Factory workers in China rebelling (AP)


----------



## JLowder

seankreynolds said:


> What they do is find interesting, profitable young companies, buy them, squeeze as much money as they can out of them, crush everything that is unique and innovative about them, and then discard them when they're no longer profitable.




For anyone interested in more on this subject, read G. Wayne Miller's _Toy Wars_, a corporate history of Hasbro. It deals in particular with the acquisition of Kenner.



seankreynolds said:


> You can be fair and responsible in your treatment of your employees *and* fair and responsible to the financial interests of your investors.




Amen, brother. Few people in the industry make good money, and most hobby companies cannot generally afford to pay them a whole hell of a lot more than they do already. But the good companies--the smart companies--show staff and freelancers respect, let them know they are valued. You can do that in a lot of ways that cost the company little or no money. In return, the company gets more work and better work. 

It's astounding how elusive that concept seems to be in some corners out in Renton.

Cheers,
Jim Lowder
www.jameslowder.com


----------



## justanobody

jinnetics said:


> Factory workers in China rebelling (AP)




 Layoffs from Hasbro everywhere in the world it seems!


----------



## Zinegata

seankreynolds said:


> Far too many companies act this way, whether it's cutting benefits, shipping jobs to cheaper workers overseas, etc. ... it looks good on paper in the short term, but 1, 2, 5, or 10 years down the road you look at the ruins of your business and wonder why profits are still down and your employees have no loyalty.




Yep. Personally, I think the biggest problem nowadays is that many Board of Directors and other company owners simply don't even bother looking at how their businesses operate, they simply want X amount of money, and they think that by paying their executives and CEOs millions of dollars (most in the form of bonuses that will only be paid for reaching some revenue or profitability target) they'll get results.

What happens in reality is Enron.

Most businesses simply have their natural levels of profitability, growth, and success based on their product and the state of the market. You can't, for instance, expect D&D to become a mass-market product overnight. It's a niche product for a niche market. You'll make a few million out of it, but don't expect something in the hundred-million range (that's what video games are for). 

Still, to be absolutely fair to WoTC and Hasbro, the whole DDI & Gleemax thing *is* a pretty big mess. And personally, I was one of the many voices raising concerns about the viability of the whole enterprise, and it greatly irked me that the response was basically "Shut up troll, Gleemax is really going great!"

So, while I think some people who did outstanding work didn't deserve to be fired (Solice, in particular, was about the sole voice from WoTC who made an effort to listen to people pointing out Gleemax's glaring problems), I can't really say that I'm surprised by the layoffs, nor can I be wholly sympathetic to all of the folks who lost their jobs. 

Yes, people get laid off all the time because of bad decisions by top management. But there are also people who are rightly laid off because they frankly screwed up. This whole thing seems like a mix of both.


----------



## Brix

*Goodbuy*

As a customer I departed from the Realms of WoTC long ago. As they don't show respect for their employees, and subsequently (again) not for their customers, who
* wish to get high quality stuff 
* are often fans of certain designers (just take a look on skreyn's impact on FR, or Julia Martin)
But to be frank. IMO WotC does not need many quality people. Why? Easy. 4E is basically finished. Now you only need a few guys to take care of the system, and some other people who invent new names for the crunchy pc powers. A task which a 14 year old boy can fullfill.
The same with fluff. Look at the FR. No need for FR sholars anymore. And the web support for FR is also cut down to almost nonexistance, also from a quality point of view. Just think of the "sleepy hollow" headless Zhentarim rider! As Sean Reynolds already said, they start to do the same errors, because there is no one left to remember.
Personally I use PRPG, now and (maybe) forever. I try to buy all pre-4E FR stuff that is still around, and then I'm happy for the rest of my life.


----------



## Talaeden_Denthiir

This is REALLY sad.  My sincerest condolences to all of you who have been laid off during this time of year during such a great finacial crisis for the nation.

Randy Buehler (VP of digital gaming)
Andrew Finch (director of digital games)
Stacy Longstreet (senior art director)
Julia Martin (editor)
William Meyers (creative manager, digital design)
Dave Noonan (game designer)
Jennifer Paige (online community manager)
Jennifer Powers (marketing)
Jonathan Tweet (game designer)

You will all be missed...

Johnathan, glad to see all is not lost at least for you.  I hope the others fare as well and are able to fully enjoy the holidays with family and friends.

I don't know what happened in WotC, but I'm no longer working at a job that has 'layed-off' at least 5 people during the only 3+ years I was working there because they were, in fact, making too much money.  Most of the people in charge also made poor decisions that didn't affect them in the least but always trickled down the blame and extra fruitless work to someone else below them.  Add to that the fact that not only did one of the best employees get 'canned', but it was not soon after the death of her husband.  And tragically, not too long after being let go, she passed away as well.   

In my personal experience many companies that say they promote workers opinions do not and it's just not about the bottom line but the corporate execs hindquaters and I pray to God that WotC isn't one of them.


----------



## avin

seankreynolds said:


> While she could do such a thing, the quality of your products would suffer (much like how the quality of the D&D minis has gone downhill), and that would alienate your customers, and that eventually makes up for the "savings" of hiring cheaper workers. It's stupid and shortsighted.




That explains Dungeons of Dread and some horrible 4E artwork and reuse from 3.5 stuff...


----------



## Jonny Nexus

mlund said:


> The moment someone else (or something else) comes along who can perform your tasks more ably or at the same level of ability (and I include trustworthiness and experience as relevant components in my definition of ability) but for less money the company should make plans to move you to a different job or lay you off. That's how competition and innovation work.




That's not how it works in the UK.

Over here, there are two ways that someone can lose their job: sacking and redundancy.

Sacking is when you lose your job because you haven't been doing it properly. That can be anything from poor attendance to insubordination to gross incompetance. The employer has to follow due process, which typically (except for gross misconduct) means that they have to give you a verbal warning followed by a written warning. In this case, you're not entitled to any extra money (except, I guess, the money from your contract's notice period).

Redundancy is when the company lets you go because your job no longer exists. This typically happens when they are having to shed numbers because of (say) a slowdown in orders. In this case, you don't have to have done anything wrong. But you are entitled to more money - I think the statutory minimum is your notice period (typically a month) plus one weeks salary for each year that you've worked for them.

What a company can't do is make you redundant, and then immediately recruit someone to do exactly the same job that you were doing. In that case, you could sue them for wrongful dismissal (i.e. they've effectively sacked you, but without them going through any sort of disciplinary process, and quite possibly without you doing anything that actually merited being sacked).


----------



## drothgery

seankreynolds said:


> 3) Changing their fiscal year to something other that Jan-Dec means that having these annual layoffs wouldn't happen 3 weeks before Christmas.




Changing their fisical year will not affect all the taxes and labor regulations that work off of the actual year.


----------



## TheGM

Zinegata said:


> Yep. Personally, I think the biggest problem nowadays is that many Board of Directors and other company owners simply don't even bother looking at how their businesses operate, they simply want X amount of money, and they think that by paying their executives and CEOs millions of dollars (most in the form of bonuses that will only be paid for reaching some revenue or profitability target) they'll get results.
> 
> What happens in reality is Enron.




Wow, your brush is a little broad there, no?
Sure, Enron happened, but it's such a memory for everyone because it doesn't happen all the time, not because it's the norm.

Truth be told, it's a global economy, and in a global economy production goes where it's cheapest. That's not gouging, that's business. It's been happening forever.

And executive/CEO salaries are out of line in some instances, but if a CEO screws up, people get layed off or the company goes under. If the janitor screws up, the bathroom is gross. HUGE difference. Nowadays if someone makes an accounting error the CEO can even go to jail. Dumb.

If they're taking bonuses when they're not meeting numbers and laying off employees, that pisses me off. You failed, no bonus, just like the rest of us. But in general, I won't begrudge them what they've worked for. And don't understand why anyone would. If you get a job offer with bonuses, it's not like you're going to say "oh no, no bonuses, I'm happier as a wage slave" or anything, why should they?

Don.


----------



## xechnao

TheGM said:


> Nowadays if someone makes an accounting error the CEO can even go to jail. Dumb.



Oh, there are thousands of ways for them to cover their [insert word]


----------



## TheGM

xechnao said:


> Oh, there are thousands of ways for them to cover their [insert word]




Yeah, there are some. But the fact that the US even has such a law is ridiculous. If there weren't ways to protect yourself, who would agree to be a CEO? 

They're not all angels, just like no segment of the population is all angels. But they're not all opportunistic s either. My issue was with the breadth the brush was used, and the breadth it is used across society. Just because someone worked hard and landed a CEO position doesn't make them instantly vile. Most are good people dealing with complex problems, nothing more.

Don.


----------



## xechnao

TheGM said:


> Just because someone worked hard and landed a CEO position doesn't make them instantly vile.



Nope. But many people work hard. Not everyone has the same benefits. This makes certain people more, some times much more privileged that others. This situation draws bad feelings and I am sure you can understand it.


----------



## TheGM

xechnao said:


> Nope. But many people work hard. Not everyone has the same benefits. This makes certain people more, some times much more privileged that others. This situation draws bad feelings and I am sure you can understand it.




Understand it? Yeah. Have the same understanding as you do? Not likely.  I'm into the whole "level of responsibility" thing. Haven't found the company that I'd want to be responsible for heading/destroying, so I'm not too worked up that the CEO makes X times more than me. Simply put, the counter person at McDonalds doesn't deserve the benefits that the CEO gets. It's all about level of impact. Sorry, it's true. 

But we've sidetracked their thread enough... 

Don.


----------



## Mistwell

Last month, U.S. employers cut 533K jobs, the most in 34 years.  The last time this many people were laid off in a single month, it was the Ford administration I believe.  The U.S. is also in the worst financial crisis since the 1930s.

Given those facts, I think too many people are naively assuming these layoffs are not the result of the general economy.  You can make up excuses out of anger like "poorly run" and "greedy" and "didn't prepare" and "does this every year".  But realistically, the U.S. is in a serious economic crises that was unexpected (it started on a specific date - when Lehman Brothers went under).  Economic recessions have a direct, fast impact on hobby industries as people cut back on their purchases (and people have cut way back on their purchases in general, and that is provable).  

The primary cause of these layoffs, or at least the extent of these layoffs, is probably due to circumstances entirely beyond the control of WOTC, and that is the sudden financial crises and recession.  And when that happens, companies have to lay people off or else fall into the red.  Which is exactly what thousands of companies did last month, to an extent unseen in 34 years.  It's not a coincidence that all those companies did the same thing as WOTC.  They are reacting to a real, tangible economic crises.


----------



## Melba Toast

TheGM said:


> Understand it? Yeah. Have the same understanding as you do? Not likely.  I'm into the whole "level of responsibility" thing. Haven't found the company that I'd want to be responsible for heading/destroying, so I'm not too worked up that the CEO makes X times more than me. Simply put, the counter person at McDonalds doesn't deserve the benefits that the CEO gets. It's all about level of impact. Sorry, it's true.
> 
> Don.




Perhaps not... but I don't think the point is to compare CEOs to fry cooks. 

Rather, the point, if I understand correctly, is that the CEOs and Executive Staff often lack the insight or the passion that the -CREATIVE STAFF- do, and that -CREATIVE STAFF- most often get the shaft.

In the current market economy, creativity is dramatically undervalued. Creatives are the people who innovate, the people who find new solutions. Historically, it has been the creative that has driven the economy as society's entrepreneurs and artisans. Unfortunately, creatives today rarely have the business acumen or the financial foundation to be self-employed or maintain control of their product. So they turn ownership over to exploiters, the businessman. 

Of course, the best thing a government can do to stimulate the economy is to stop sending money to the major businesses and start putting more funding toward small-business grants, post-secondary and adult education for self-employment training.

But, of course, there's no lobby group for that.

(PS - Fry cooks get paid exceptionally well considering the required skill level)


----------



## Psion

Mistwell said:


> Last month,
> Given those facts, I think too many people are naively assuming these layoffs are not the result of the general economy.  You can make up excuses out of anger like "poorly run" and "greedy" and "didn't prepare" and "does this every year".  But realistically, the U.S. is in a serious economic crises that was unexpected (it started on a specific date - when Lehman Brothers went under).





Sure. But just like predators claiming the sickly and weak from the herd, and certain vulnerable segments aside, economic downturn job losses impact the most poorly run companies first.


----------



## xechnao

TheGM said:


> Understand it? Yeah. Have the same understanding as you do? Not likely.  I'm into the whole "level of responsibility" thing. Haven't found the company that I'd want to be responsible for heading/destroying, so I'm not too worked up that the CEO makes X times more than me. Simply put, the counter person at McDonalds doesn't deserve the benefits that the CEO gets. It's all about level of impact. Sorry, it's true.
> 
> But we've sidetracked their thread enough...
> 
> Don.




Oh I see the results all around. So can we say they have they done a good job? 

So who has the responsability for the financial mess and the hit to the economy?  Have they at the very, very least been punished? Not to speak about the lawyers they can afford these golden guys.


----------



## firesnakearies

TheGM said:


> Wow, your brush is a little broad there, no?
> Sure, Enron happened, but it's such a memory for everyone because it doesn't happen all the time, not because it's the norm.






Or because they just don't _*get caught*_ all the time.

I think people were shocked less about what unethical actions actually occurred, and more about the fact that the people involved managed to let themselves face accountability for it.


Call me a cynic, but I don't think there's any realistic push in the upper echelons of our economic/social system to _"do less wrong"_, but just to _"hide it better"_.



*$*


----------



## Mistwell

Psion said:


> Sure. But just like predators claiming the sickly and weak from the herd, and certain vulnerable segments aside, economic downturn job losses impact the most poorly run companies first.




Or the industries most vulnerable to a sudden and unexpected reduction in spending.

It's a hobby company.  When people cut spending suddenly, hobbies are almost sure to be near the top of the list.  Buying a new D&D book is always in the "discretionary spending" category for everyone except those who actually work in the industry.

I don't see how this has anything to do with how well or poorly WOTC is run.  There is no good functioning business plan that assumes every month will be an economic crises unseen in our lifetimes that smacks your company particularly hard.  Sometimes, life throws a company a serious curve ball, and the only realistic way to roll with it and stay above water is to lay people off.  It looks to me like that is what happened here.  

It's not like WOTC had no reserves to deal with a "normal" economic issue - they did, and you can see they are spending some of those reserves in severance checks to those they are laying off (something they are under no obligation to do).  But to pretend there is an realistic business plan that could absorb a massive sudden hit this big without WOTC cutting spending is naive.  

My guess is we have not even seen the last of the layoffs at WOTC, and another waive will hit again in a few months.  This is not normal stuff they are having to deal with, and it's probably going to get worse.  I'd rather WOTC do what is necessary to stay above water, then have them try and cling to every employee until they go belly up.


----------



## Melba Toast

Mistwell said:


> .  There is no good functioning business plan that assumes every month will be an economic crises unseen in our lifetimes that smacks your company particularly hard.





I don't know. I think a lot of businesses are using the "economic crisis" as an excuse to cut the fat. I don't really think WotC have been, nor will they be, that adversely affected by a crisis that is primarily a concern to the financial industry, the luxury industry, housing and auto industries.

Role-playing has weathered 3 decades by appealing to a core demographic (young males) who, as a group, have never had much significant buying power. A lot of us have never even managed to hold down a steady job, nor do we particularly care if we lose the ones we have. 

Anyway, the economic crisis is a bunch of b.s. It'll pass just as soon as the banks get their money. (I mean, honestly, do you really think the bank was just being stupid when they gave that $400,000 mortgage to the single mother of two based on her salary as a cashier at Walmart. They knew EXACTLY what they were doing!)


----------



## Wonka

Melba Toast said:


> Anyway, the economic crisis is a bunch of b.s. It'll pass just as soon as the banks get their money. (I mean, honestly, *do you really think the bank was just being stupid when they gave that $400,000 mortgage to the single mother of two based on her salary as a cashier at Walmart. They knew EXACTLY what they were doing!*)




(emphasis mine)

Yes, yes I do. If you are implying they purposely gave out lending they knew was a bad idea, solely to get  bail out money, all I have to say is wow. Just, wow. Because thats my interpretation of your post, This crisis is the worst the US has seen since the 1930s, and you are calling it B.S? Ok then! Im sorry if I have misunderstood you.


----------



## justanobody

The fact that banks got the money and not the people is the BS, because people laid off could be using the money, while the banks won't lend to people that have recently been laid off as they have no collateral the bank can steal claim should the loan not be repaid.


----------



## The Little Raven

justanobody said:


> The fact that banks got the money and not the people is the BS, because people laid off could be using the money, while the banks won't lend to people that have recently been laid off as they have no collateral the bank can steal claim should the loan not be repaid.




Indeed, but that is heading into politics, which we should be avoiding.


----------



## justanobody

The Little Raven said:


> Indeed, but that is heading into politics, which we should be avoiding.




noted.


----------



## occam

Wulf Ratbane said:


> CEO of the Year.




From the article:



> As his Hollywood chutzpah shows, Goldner's aim is high: to turn Hasbro's top nameplates into global power brands that consumers can experience in any way and format at any time they want, including movies, video games and even a theme-park attraction.
> ...Goldner also added new positions and named Los Angeles-based executives to nurture and explore Hollywood relationships and opportunities.
> ...transforming it beyond a toymaker to an intellectual-property-owning powerhouse.




I've said this before: If Hasbro is looking for marketable intellectual property, they already have a veritable IP factory they're not taking full advantage of. Between MtG, Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Greyhawk, Dark Sun, even going back to Star Frontiers, maybe Gamma World, and much more, TSR/WotC has a nearly limitless supply of creative products ready to be exploited. Some of them are already the basis of very popular book lines. Done _right_, with proper respect for the source material, you could have a Marvel-sized goldmine of movie properties, too. (Probably best to leave the D&D name off the title, though; that's probably toxic after the first two efforts.    )

And theme parks? How cool could a D&D theme park be? Just watch out for that roller coaster, you don't know where you might end up....


----------



## Mistwell

Melba Toast said:


> I don't know. I think a lot of businesses are using the "economic crisis" as an excuse to cut the fat.





Do you have anything to back that up other than your instincts?  And if it is just your instincts, then what's your financial background that makes you feel your instincts are good on this topic?



> I don't really think WotC have been, nor will they be, that adversely affected by a crisis that is primarily a concern to the financial industry, the luxury industry, housing and auto industries.




I just linked to the article showing that sales are down across the board for all retail stores.  Seriously, you are in denial if you still think this is just an isolated financial crises.  I can see thinking that a couple of months ago...but now?  You'd have to be doing a really good job of ignoring all the new financial information coming out.



> Role-playing has weathered 3 decades by appealing to a core demographic (young males) who, as a group, have never had much significant buying power. A lot of us have never even managed to hold down a steady job, nor do we particularly care if we lose the ones we have.




It hasn't been "young" males for a decade or so.  It's mostly 30-somethings now buying things like supplements, not college students or younger.  And that group that usually does the buying is the prime group getting hit hardest by the recession right now.



> Anyway, the economic crisis is a bunch of b.s. It'll pass just as soon as the banks get their money. (I mean, honestly, do you really think the bank was just being stupid when they gave that $400,000 mortgage to the single mother of two based on her salary as a cashier at Walmart. They knew EXACTLY what they were doing!)




Wow.  That is...not in line with reality I am seeing.  In any way.  It's not just banks.  It was never just banks in fact (AIG is not a bank for example), and there is no question any more that this has spread to virtually every sector of the economy.  Every single measure of economic health shows that.  The entire body of evidence does not support your conclusion. If you have some article showing differently, I would love to see it.


----------



## Mistwell

justanobody said:


> The fact that banks got the money and not the people is the BS, because people laid off could be using the money, while the banks won't lend to people that have recently been laid off as they have no collateral the bank can steal claim should the loan not be repaid.




Banks did not "get" money.  They got a loan.


----------



## joethelawyer

Mistwell said:


> It hasn't been "young" males for a decade or so.  It's mostly 30-somethings now buying things like supplements, not college students or younger.  And that group that usually does the buying is the prime group getting hit hardest by the recession right now.





do you have stats for that demographic breakdown?


----------



## xechnao

Wonka said:


> (emphasis mine)
> 
> Yes, yes I do. If you are implying they purposely gave out lending they knew was a bad idea, solely to get  bail out money, all I have to say is wow. Just, wow. Because thats my interpretation of your post, This crisis is the worst the US has seen since the 1930s, and you are calling it B.S? Ok then! Im sorry if I have misunderstood you.




Either they gave out lending on purpose or they too stupid. Not only this but there are gobal institution that examine and name the status of companies (better not go to specifics) -they obviously lied. This happened for various reasons (we can say they are not as simplistic as some banks to get bailout money but it smells system corruption all over the place)
On a different note I also find it hard to believe the european banks did not figure this out and had so much faith in the system (oh these europeans (I am a european too btw).


----------



## der_kluge

Mistwell said:


> Last month, U.S. employers cut 533K jobs, the most in 34 years.  The last time this many people were laid off in a single month, it was the Ford administration I believe.  The U.S. is also in the worst financial crisis since the 1930s.
> 
> Given those facts, I think too many people are naively assuming these layoffs are not the result of the general economy.  You can make up excuses out of anger like "poorly run" and "greedy" and "didn't prepare" and "does this every year".  But realistically, the U.S. is in a serious economic crises that was unexpected (it started on a specific date - when Lehman Brothers went under).  Economic recessions have a direct, fast impact on hobby industries as people cut back on their purchases (and people have cut way back on their purchases in general, and that is provable).
> 
> The primary cause of these layoffs, or at least the extent of these layoffs, is probably due to circumstances entirely beyond the control of WOTC, and that is the sudden financial crises and recession.  And when that happens, companies have to lay people off or else fall into the red.  Which is exactly what thousands of companies did last month, to an extent unseen in 34 years.  It's not a coincidence that all those companies did the same thing as WOTC.  They are reacting to a real, tangible economic crises.




That's all well and good, but the key fact that's missing here is how is WoTC's profitability?  It's entirely possible that WoTC is making *more* money now - could it be possible that people, once they get laid off, decide to devote more time to gaming since they suddenly have free time?  We simply do not know.  I think you're giving WoTC far more credit than they deserve.


----------



## Mistwell

joethelawyer said:


> do you have stats for that demographic breakdown?




They come from some of the stuff the 3e guys were talking about with their survey.  Much like the comic book industry, the Tabletop RPG industry has aged along with it's original audience.  I believe you can find it here.  And since they state that the players of the hobby are aging with it, and not being refreshed with younger players at the same rate as they used to, you can safely age that study even more now.


----------



## Mistwell

der_kluge said:


> That's all well and good, but the key fact that's missing here is how is WoTC's profitability?




All leaked information we have seen is that it is bad.  Not nearly as good as planned.



> It's entirely possible that WoTC is making *more* money now - could it be possible that people, once they get laid off, decide to devote more time to gaming since they suddenly have free time?  We simply do not know.  I think you're giving WoTC far more credit than they deserve.




No I do not think it is likely that people who are laid off spend more of their dwindling savings on hobby products.  History does not support that conclusion.  None of the stats support that conclusion for similar industries.  Pick an entertainment-type company of any sort, look at their published numbers since Layman brothers went under, and you will find they are all down.  

I am not saying it's some genius well laid scheme to lay people off...I am saying it's an entirely normal reaction being done by virtually every major company right now in the U.S..  What "credit" do you think I am giving them?


----------



## Mark

Mistwell said:


> Much like the comic book industry, the RPG industry has aged along with it's original audience.





Fifty years from now someone will retire into a nursing home named _Saint Mononoke_.


----------



## Henry

Next business venture for George Lucas -- he starts a nationwide chain of retirement homes, called _*Skywalker Ranch*_, where residents have scheduled D&D days, they show Star Wars movies (only the first trilogy, of course, no use upsetting the residents!) and other genre stuff for movie night, and all the dessert cups are shaped like little R2-D2's or bowls with Spider-Man or Captain America designs in the bottoms...


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Given the success of the Star Trek themed casino (that recently closed), themed resorts (like the Ice Hotel) and other pop-culture trends, I wouldn't be surprised to see communities (retirement; any age but gated; resorts, etc.) based on pop cultural icons- be they books, comics, cartoons or what have you- springing up.

Probably in Japan first, THEN the USA.

One thing is for sure, I hope I don't wind up retiring to either an X-Files or Bubba Ho-Tep community...


----------



## TheGM

Mistwell said:


> No I do not think it is likely that people who are laid off spend more of their dwindling savings on hobby products.  History does not support that conclusion.  None of the stats support that conclusion for similar industries.  Pick an entertainment-type company of any sort, look at their published numbers since Layman brothers went under, and you will find they are all down.




Don't want to sidetrack too much, but I spoke to a terrain developer who told me people do indeed spend more on hobbies - they don't buy that car, house, or $3000 dollar computer, they don't spend 5 bucks a drink in the bar, instead they stay home and buy his products. He says that every economic downturn since he started his business has resulted in increased sales.

Of course, the "I don't want to sidetrack..." part is because he's one business and not an industry-wide trend, but it was an interesting conversation when I had it.

I think how far down has a lot to do with how well they satisfy customer needs too - the mainstream media starting layoffs already? Not a surprise to me. WoTC - even though I'm not a 4E fan? Surprise to me.

Don.


----------



## firesnakearies

Henry said:


> Next business venture for George Lucas -- he starts a nationwide chain of retirement homes, called _*Skywalker Ranch*_, where residents have scheduled D&D days, they show Star Wars movies (only the first trilogy, of course, no use upsetting the residents!) and other genre stuff for movie night, and all the dessert cups are shaped like little R2-D2's or bowls with Spider-Man or Captain America designs in the bottoms...






Dude, I'd go live there NOW.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Henry said:


> Next business venture for George Lucas -- he starts a nationwide chain of retirement homes, called _*Skywalker Ranch*_...




I'm going to trust my golden years to the man who sold out my childhood memories? I don't think so.

Not unless you want me to sit there in my room all day, screaming at the nurses, "HAN SHOT FIRST!"


----------



## SlyFlourish

*Really Sad*

I can't believe I was too busy looking up the rules on Stinking Cloud to read about this.

This is very sad news. Dave Noonan was a sort of hero of mine when I started playing again. He's been the voice of D&D to me through the Podcasts and I loved his articles about the Dungeon Delve format that he posted. It changed how I played D&D.

When I saw the layout of 4th edition products, I saw his work in it. I saw how much easier to use the D&D adventures are. I saw the constant shift to making sure that things work well at the table first.

I think Dave had a big influence over 4e's philosophy and I think the game overall is much better for it. He had a lot of philosophies about usability that I hope are not lost.

I also hope to see his work again elsewhere.

I don't know the others very well but personally speaking, I think a focus on "digital initiatives" is a mistake for Wizards. A character generator, online compendium, Dragon, and Dungeon are fine. The Character Portrait Generator is a complete waste of time and money. I couldn't care less for a WoW / EQ2 character generator. I also think the digital game table is going to take far more work than it will be worth. Wizards should keep their team small and build the best paper products in the industry. They should outsource required electronic components (like the Creator) and license their brand to companies that have experience building things like the game table (a NWN online component or the like).

Spreading yourself too thin can be a major problem. I'd much rather have seen them dump the digital stuff and keep guys like Dave. Firing Dave was a mistake.

Dave, I'm hoping you manage to get through the 19 pages of posts to read this. You made the game better for me and for my group. We're happier people because of your work. I hope you stay in the industry and keep putting out the quality we've sen before.

Thank you.


----------



## phloog

xechnao said:


> So who has the responsability for the financial mess and the hit to the economy? Have they at the very, very least been punished? Not to speak about the lawyers they can afford these golden guys.




An economy of any kind is an extremely complex system.  I don't want to devolve into politics, either...but I think it's poor practice to believe that there has to be blame assigned when economies fall, or praise when they do well.  

Actual blame normally can't be assigned because too many things are involved, and the human need to point fingers and find the enemy makes us very susceptible to plays on those needs - if someone can convincingly point a finger, they can get us to do what they want.


----------



## xechnao

phloog said:


> An economy of any kind is an extremely complex system.  I don't want to devolve into politics, either...but I think it's poor practice to believe that there has to be blame assigned when economies fall, or praise when they do well.
> 
> Actual blame normally can't be assigned because too many things are involved, and the human need to point fingers and find the enemy makes us very susceptible to plays on those needs - if someone can convincingly point a finger, they can get us to do what they want.




I agree with what you are saying 100%. But then when I was talking about the problems of the current system of economy that have been leading to the current results people justified the system by the existance of the balancing forces of responsability. Well I just asked them to show me in practice. Claro?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Given the success of the Star Trek themed casino (that recently closed), themed resorts (like the Ice Hotel) and other pop-culture trends, I wouldn't be surprised to see communities (retirement; any age but gated; resorts, etc.) based on pop cultural icons- be they books, comics, cartoons or what have you- springing up.




Just to share and expand on this, Michael Marshall Smith's "What you make it" a short story from 1999, is set in a Disney-esque retirement village.


----------



## Mistwell

Bloomberg just reported today that "Almost all businesses are in survival mode, and they’re slashing payrolls and investments just to conserve cash...We’re in store for some big job losses".  

Why is it some folks here think that WOTC is immune as a hobby company from that "almost all businesses" and their layoffs were primarily similar to all prior layoffs and have nothing really to do with the immediate chaos set into motion relatively recently that is hitting all those other businesses?

I think it's fair to debate the various causes of these layoffs, and what percentage of the bad economy contributed to the layoffs as opposed to what percentage was normal staged layoffs.  But, I don't understand folks who think the bad economy isn't a major contributing factor.  

You may right (I am not simply dismissing the "normal layoffs are the only primary cause" concept outright), but I am having trouble seeing the evidence there.  If someone could post some links showing that overall hobby-type or entertainment-type companies have done well this last quarter relative to the rest of the economy, that might help.  Or if anyone has anything showing WOTC profits themselves are up this prior quarter, that would help even more.  But without that sort of stuff, why would people conclude that the bad economy is not a major contributing factor to this?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

When I was studying for my econ degree (many, many moons ago), we looked at the flexibility of demand for various luxury goods, though not RPG products in particular.

Luxuries that had highly flexible demand were things like jewelry, fine dining, a new car, and so forth.  They were all either high in initial cost and/or low in long-term value.

Items that had good long term value tended to be more "recession-proof"- and these were things like books and family entertainment (at the time, cards, boardgames, bowling leagues, sports participation fees)*.  Though I have no hard data, I would imagine that RPGs would have a similar demand flexibility to such items.

* Oddly, for the poor, seeing movies in theaters was in this class- they were seen as inexpensive family entertainment and one source of air conditioned fun for families without quality AC.  Since their initial consumption levels were low (relative to the general public), there was little change in their pattern as prices rose.


----------



## Mark

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I would imagine that RPGs would have a similar demand flexibility to such items.





The problem might lie in the change in the business model whereby the rules are spread out over many more books, thus decreasing the perceived longterm value, coupled with the subscription-based support that requires and additional continuous cost.  Gone are the days of an up-front core book cash layout coupled with tons of free online support with optional tied-in supplements for those who wish to go above and beyond the core.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

True, but the Core books would have relatively stable demand over time- something that seems to hold up according to the various people who post sales data on such things.


----------



## Mark

Dannyalcatraz said:


> True, but the Core books would have relatively stable demand over time- something that seems to hold up according to the various people who post sales data on such things.





Maybe if core books came out only once every three to four years but that's no longer the model now that yearly core books are planned, with a cost of $35 a pop for three ($75 each for three if you want the deluxe editions).


----------



## joethelawyer

Dannyalcatraz said:


> When I was studying for my econ degree (many, many moons ago), we looked at the flexibility of demand for various luxury goods, though not RPG products in particular.
> 
> Luxuries that had highly flexible demand were things like jewelry, fine dining, a new car, and so forth.  They were all either high in initial cost and/or low in long-term value.
> 
> Items that had good long term value tended to be more "recession-proof"- and these were things like books and family entertainment (at the time, cards, boardgames, bowling leagues, sports participation fees)*.  Though I have no hard data, I would imagine that RPGs would have a similar demand flexibility to such items.
> 
> * Oddly, for the poor, seeing movies in theaters was in this class- they were seen as inexpensive family entertainment and one source of air conditioned fun for families without quality AC.  Since their initial consumption levels were low (relative to the general public), there was little change in their pattern as prices rose.





I think the bottom line is that most rpg'ers of any edition who have been playing for a while and like their system can play indefinitely with that system with no more purchases required, ever.  Add the advent of programs that enable illegal filesharing, and one could have a megalibrary of enough supplemental material to last 13 lifetime, in just a single weekend of downloading.  

As times get tougher, more people will ikely turn to that avenue, in effect socializing gaming, having the rich pay for the poor's gaming hobby.


----------



## Mark

joethelawyer said:


> Add the advent of programs that enable illegal filesharing, and one could have a megalibrary of enough supplemental material to last 13 lifetime, in just a single weekend of downloading.





People who take part in that sort of activity can never be considered as those who would have been part of a revenue stream.  There are some who illegally download and then also legitamately purchase some of what they download illegally but those people are already accounted for in accounts of the regular revenue stream.  Trying to factor in issues of piracy into any discussion of economics is impossible due to the lack of hard data.  I advise leaving that part of the discussion aside.


----------



## benichov

Dave, 

No fun losing a job - especially this close to the holidays.  I miss you on the podcast and I really hope you are keeping your spirits up. 

Warmly, 

Boris


----------



## joethelawyer

Mark said:


> People who take part in that sort of activity can never be considered as those who would have been part of a revenue stream.  There are some who illegally download and then also legitamately purchase some of what they download illegally but those people are already accounted for in accounts of the regular revenue stream.  Trying to factor in issues of piracy into any discussion of economics is impossible due to the lack of hard data.  I advise leaving that part of the discussion aside.





true, but they may be people who USED TO be part of revenue stream calculations.

Now they just cant afford it and download for free.

That would tend to make the hobby as a whole more recession-proof, in that players wuld be available and it wouldn't die off due to lack of players. Whether the 3pp's can afford to survive is another matter.  They would have to scale back output, likely, to fewer products which would likely sell best.  The most bang for the limited production cost bucks.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Mark said:


> People who take part in that sort of activity can never be considered as those who would have been part of a revenue stream.  There are some who illegally download and then also legitamately purchase some of what they download illegally but those people are already accounted for in accounts of the regular revenue stream.  Trying to factor in issues of piracy into any discussion of economics is impossible due to the lack of hard data.  I advise leaving that part of the discussion aside.




Actually, they are part of the revenue stream, in the form of a drain on a company's bottom line.  There are formulae for such calculations.

As for hard data, it exists*, but its mostly in the hands of the investigating agencies (FBI, INTERPOL), the IP holders & their professional organizations (RIAA), and in certain reports given to some organizations (like speeches & lectures to Copyright lawyers getting their CLE ). It can be had, but you may have to pay for it.

Some polls and investigative reports have also shown interesting data regarding the behavior of downloaders- whether they'll subsequently purchase legal copies of the IP they acquired illegally (under 50%); whether a pirate's ties to organized crime or terrorism matter to those who get their IP from them (for about 20%, it doesn't).  Interesting stuff.

* The data exists mainly for books, albums, computer programs and certain games- mainly board games.  However, AFAIK, none exists specifically for RPG games.


----------



## justanobody

D&D Podcast #30


			
				Bart Carroll D&D podcast producer said:
			
		

> As of Tuesday December 2nd there was a reorganization here at Wizards of the Coast, the details behind which you can largely read about in Bill Slavesik's latest Ampersand column going up on Friday ~mumble mumble~ (couldn't hear it at full volume). Sadly Dave Noonan was affected by this reogranization.
> 
> ~snip~
> 
> Julia Martin also affected by the reorganization. She was a veteran of D&D since before Wizards of the Coast, having worked the game back at Lake Geneva back at TSR.




I guess there is no one left except Bill from TSR at WotC, and find it funny that the info you can find about the reorganization is only for subscribers....

I will leave the rest of the podcast for its own thread and leave this hear about the layoffs.

Is Scott Rouse no longer the Brand Manager?



> Kerin Chase(SP) Brand Manager on D&D


----------



## MadMaxim

I also just listened to the podcast and it was confirmed that Dave and Julia were affected by the re-organization. I feel sorry for all of the people who lost their job at Wizards of the Coast. I hope that you all find new employment some other place and I wish you all the best of luck 

I've been reading all the pages so far (this is a VERY long thread to keep track of) and it seems speculation concerning the layoffs is based either around Wizards' usual cuts around this time of year or the current financial crisis (or a combination thereof). It's weird but, of course, there has to some legitimate reason for Wizards to let this many people go. I'm not saying it's sensible or fair, but there has to be a reason that we're not going to ever really know about...


----------



## Mark

joethelawyer said:


> true, but they may be people who USED TO be part of revenue stream calculations.
> 
> Now they just cant afford it and download for free.







Dannyalcatraz said:


> Actually, they are part of the revenue stream, in the form of a drain on a company's bottom line.  There are formulae for such calculations.
> 
> As for hard data, it exists*





My point being, which I think you guys are helping to make, is that there seems to be no actual correlation between illegal downloading and sales in that there no way to claim they would have made purchases of things they download.  It might be that they would have, but the proof just isn't there if they don't actually do so.  I'm not proponent of illegal DLing, so don't get me wrong, but I am under no illusion that piracy has little to do with sales, one way or another.


----------



## Mokona

xechnao said:


> Nope. But many people work hard. Not everyone has the same benefits. This makes certain people more, some times much more privileged that others. This situation draws bad feelings and I am sure _you can understand it_.



It is called jealousy!

"Understand" can mean "to accept sympathetically".  I am not sympathetic to people who haven't yet reached the highest levels of success being jealous of CEOs.



Melba Toast said:


> Creatives are the people who innovate, the people who find new solutions. Historically, it has been the creative that has driven the economy as society's entrepreneurs and artisans. Unfortunately, creatives today rarely have the business acumen or the financial foundation to be self-employed or maintain control of their product. So they turn ownership over to exploiters, the businessman.



There is no rule that says businessman are not also creative.  In fact, anyone who has ever worked for a good manager or leader knows that top positions can drive massive positive change in an organization.  Strategic vision is not necessarily the domain of line-level employees but it does drive corporate success.

Sometimes it is the lower levels of a company that drive stagnation and failure such as paying excess union employees to sit around and do nothing all day.



firesnakearies said:


> Call me a cynic, but I don't think there's any realistic push in the upper echelons of our economic/social system to _"do less wrong"_, but just to _"hide it better"_.



Yes, you're a cynic.  Most people try to be honest and assume others will do so as well.  This fact allows the dishonest to succeed because honest people aren't constantly suspicious of everyone they meet.  Enron had some dishonest people, perhaps including the CEO, but it also had thousands of honest employees who never caught on to the problems.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> My point being, which I think you guys are helping to make, is that there seems to be no actual correlation between illegal downloading and sales in that there no way to claim they would have made purchases of things they download.




Actually, I'm saying that

1) there are formulae that exist to help businesses calculate lost sales due to various forms of IP theft- it helps them do their accounting.  As for their correlation to reality, they tend to be on the conservative side- actual losses when discovered by raids (both physical and electronic) tend to be a bit higher.

Not all pirates offer stolen IP for free.  Some sell it at "deep discounts" to fund criminal or terrorist activities.  An artist of my acquaintance saw a Russian Mob website outsell legitimate purchases their self-released first recording 4-1.  It cost them thousands of dollars.  Some Chinese manufacturers have been caught running their factories during scheduled down time to release 100% perfect copies of products they're licensed to produced...both Western and Chinese, btw.

and

2) there are several studies (privately funded and gov't) that show correlations between drops in sales in a given area and the ease of piracy within that area.  Most notable were those studies that showed marked declines in music sales around universities as PC and mainframe speeds increased, and previous studies showing similar declines in sales of printed material in areas served by high-speed, high quality copy centers (Kinkos, Alphagraphics, and even some institutional copy centers).  The latter data was significant in lawsuits that engendered the current reluctance of some of those businesses to copy even things we know we're allowed to copy (under express language dealing with the product or Fair Use Doctrine).


----------



## Banshee16

Sorry to hear about the layoffs.....particularly before Christmas, they're no fun.  I'm experiencing it this year for the first time myself, so I can empathize.

Take a deep breath, try to enjoy the holidays, and just remember that as long as you and your family are healthy, everything else can be solved.

Banshee


----------



## Mark

Dannyalcatraz said:


> there are several studies (privately funded and gov't) (. . .) similar declines in sales of printed material in areas served by high-speed, high quality copy centers (Kinkos, Alphagraphics, and even some institutional copy centers).  The latter data was significant in lawsuits that engendered the current reluctance of some of those businesses to copy even things we know we're allowed to copy (under express language dealing with the product or Fair Use Doctrine).





When you are back in the office (so to speak), I'd love more details or links where to get more details specifically on this particular matter.  Thanks.


----------



## justanobody

I wonder if it has more to do with piracy or just the simple fact that technology today is making it still cheaper for high quality print to be done at home rather than pay for something printed at a "professional" place like Kinkos (profesional? them? ) that would cost more than to buy it printed and bound from a bookstore from an actual publishing house.

Sounds a lot about the milkman complaining when grocery stores started selling milk and people could go get it themselves without needing the milkman anymore.

Sometimes a service is just no longer needed like the milkman or the "copy shop".


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Its not so much in links as in physical reproductions of speeches, classes, etc.  IOW, handouts.

However, I'm sure you could find such info cited in the major copyright infringement cases or in RIAA press releases.

A recent study was discussed in the Harvard Crimson.
The Harvard Crimson :: News :: Prof Says No Sales Loss from Piracy

While Oberholzer-Gee's study (the main topic of the article) concluded that there was no such linkage, the article (in the interest of good journalism), noted that his results ran counter to the vast majority of past studies, citing University of Texas at Dallas Professor Stan J. Liebowitz's study published in 2006 in University of Chicago’s Journal of Law and Economics.  (FWIW, UC is is pretty much the pinnacle of academic work on the interactions between law and economics in the USA.)


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

justanobody said:


> I wonder if it has more to do with piracy or just the simple fact that technology today is making it still cheaper for high quality print to be done at home rather than pay for something printed at a "professional" place like Kinkos (profesional? them? ) that would cost more than to buy it printed and bound from a bookstore from an actual publishing house.
> 
> Sounds a lot about the milkman complaining when grocery stores started selling milk and people could go get it themselves without needing the milkman anymore.
> 
> Sometimes a service is just no longer needed like the milkman or the "copy shop".




Except with piracy, all of the people IP production- in your analogy, the farmer, the guy who feeds the cows, the vet who keep the cows healthy, the guy who maintains the milking machine, etc.- are the ones who are losing revenue, not just the "milkman."

High quality home copiers make it easier to print everything, illegally acquired material included.  Despite this, Kinkos still makes money and University copy centers still operate.


----------



## justanobody

True, but you cannot attribute it all to piracy. Hell TVs now will record stuff for you to watch when you want and VCRs still exist to record it yet again if you want without ever having to buy it. The problem is print media is dying and the cost of digital media that should be much lower is costing the same or in some cases even more and the public isn't putting up with it!

DVDs cost pennies to make but a movie costs so mcuha t initial release it is silly. Places want to make their costs back with the first few copies of something sold. There is where the problem in the whole bit comes from. It isn't like people have only started needing copy shops recently so it is a new technology that hasn't had drops in prices for decades, but the prices are still getting raised. This drives people to copy at home. Either legally or otherwise.

I stopped buying books of all kinds because of stupid pricing on them, and just don't read much anymore unless it is something online, even the news"paper" as it were from the various free news sites aroudn the world.

So piracy cannot be blamed for it all, unless the homeless can be blamed for the real estate companies fallout just because they aren't buying homes.

You want to do better business, then you need to have something worth people wanting and a price they are willing to pay. If they are taking their "business" elsewhere they you need to change your business model to regain them.

Kinkos as the example given not wanting to print even things that say "WotC grants permission to print this for personal use" is shooting themselves in their own foot. If they don't want to print thing, then they are the only ones responsible for losing money and not having people use their printing/copy service.

Like a gas station that recently went out of business for the fear of conterfeit money because he stopped accepting cash. Who does he have to blame but himself?

So it isn't just a single factor, and the one often looked at is the wrong one to be focusing on.

Like if people don't rush to buy the new DDM replacement minis will it be the consumer fault that they didn't follow the company, or just that the product and/or service might suck? I guess it would be the fault of the people that can make their own minis in this free-market economy that allows for competition. ~shrugs~

So look at the total picture, rather than just one pixel of it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

justanobody said:


> True, but you cannot attribute it all to piracy.




I don't think anyone is asserting that.  However, there is ample documentation that sales declines around piracy hotbeds are more pronounced than in other geographic areas.




> DVDs cost pennies to make but a movie costs so mcuha t initial release it is silly.




Yes, the actual process of _pressing_ a CD or DVD is cheap, pennies, as you correctly point out.

But those costs don't include the costs of recompense to the IP's creators, or the various technicians who got that IP into its consumable format, the artist who designed the jacket art, or the marketing department's efforts in making the public aware of the product.

And after all of that, someone has to take that cheap DVD and load it (and its buddies) onto trucks; off of the trucks and into the stores; stores which must be climate controlled, guarded and otherwise maintained... Each step adds some costs which goes into the final price, each of which is also only a few pennies here or there, but those pennies add up.

Don't get me wrong, the sales of mp3s and other electronic formats are the future- that much is clear.  They eliminate many (not all) of the steps in the commercial production of IP that add costs, and are convenient to boot. But even they can't compete with free or discounted stolen IP.



> Places want to make their costs back with the first few copies of something sold. There is where the problem in the whole bit comes from.




That depends upon what IP you're talking about and where you get it.  Best Buy, for instance, commonly discounts CDs the first week or so after their release in order to boost sales and foot traffic.  The hotter the album, the more likely it is to generate subsequent sales.

OTOH, movie theaters don't make money on the early weeks of a theatrical release.  During the first weeks of release, studios get as much as 90% of the ticket sales, while the theater subsists on its sales of food & drinks.  The longer the release continues, that % drops, and the theaters actually start making money from ticket sales.  (That, BTW, is why I hate the growing practice of artificially shortening theatrical releases with a second release following a few months down the road- the agreement resets.)



> I stopped buying books of all kinds because of stupid pricing on them, and just don't read much anymore unless it is something online, even the news"paper" as it were from the various free news sites aroudn the world.




Paper is expensive.  There is increasing regulation on the use and disposal of the chemicals used to make and color it (according to the EPA, the paper industry is the #2 polluter after petrochemical companies).

In large amounts, its heavy, which means shipping it to market is expensive as well.



> So look at the total picture, rather than just one pixel of it.




I'm a big picture kind of guy.

At any rate, before a Mod steps in, we should probably disengage from this tangent- IP piracy and its effects really doesn't have much to do with the original thread.


----------



## Delta

Mokona said:


> It is called jealousy!
> 
> "Understand" can mean "to accept sympathetically". I am not sympathetic to people who haven't yet reached the highest levels of success being jealous of CEOs.
> 
> There is no rule that says businessman are not also creative. In fact, anyone who has ever worked for a good manager or leader knows that top positions can drive massive positive change in an organization. Strategic vision is not necessarily the domain of line-level employees but it does drive corporate success.
> 
> Sometimes it is the lower levels of a company that drive stagnation and failure such as paying excess union employees to sit around and do nothing all day.




This is corporate political propaganda.


----------



## Delta

Dannyalcatraz said:


> ...his results ran counter to the vast majority of past studies, citing University of Texas at Dallas Professor Stan J. Liebowitz's study published in 2006 in University of Chicago’s Journal of Law and Economics. (FWIW, UC is is pretty much the pinnacle of academic work on the interactions between law and economics in the USA.)




Of course, folks should also know that the "Chicago School" of economic thought has been very highly politicized for decades, and a lot of folks think that's exactly what drove us into the current economic trouble:

Chicago school (economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)


----------



## xechnao

Regarding piracy on digital media I doubt they will ever manage to win an aggressive war against piracy. It costs a lot and it has no drastic massive results, I think. 

Two reasonable solutions I see. Either digital distribution will officialy settle to the point where you will be allowed to have everything and anything without even legal problems. And people will still buy stuff though as they are doing allready if not even more due to psychological reasons. They will buy what product will be successfuly advertized and made as a highly regarded one to privately own. It could be due to physical value (a book) or time value (subsription to the source) or service value (subscription to a service). This model is the one Wotc is following. 

Alternatively hardware and infrastructure manufacturers will sell products self taxed for their applications. For example your internet service at home will come with an extra fee that goes to a bank that pays holders of IP. There will be public centers (such as public libraries) for anyone to be able to access anything but these wont be private -and these centers should still pay IP tax. And so if you want the convinience to have access from home at will you will have to pay privately extra tax. 

I am not sure what will be the ending settlement of the two, but publishers and marketing people will certainly be against the second and in favor of the first so it might be a long time before we see it hapening.


----------



## xechnao

Mokona said:


> It is called jealousy!
> 
> "Understand" can mean "to accept sympathetically".  I am not sympathetic to people who haven't yet reached the highest levels of success being jealous of CEOs.



You call it jealousy, I call it injustice.



Mokona said:


> Yes, you're a cynic.  Most people try to be honest and assume others will do so as well.  This fact allows the dishonest to succeed because honest people aren't constantly suspicious of everyone they meet.  Enron had some dishonest people, perhaps including the CEO, but it also had thousands of honest employees who never caught on to the problems.




Unfortunately honesty and power are two different beasts regarding how human teams relate to human groups. The system does not address this or tries to solve it. On the contrary it amplifies it.


----------



## Zinegata

TheGM said:


> Wow, your brush is a little broad there, no?
> Sure, Enron happened, but it's such a memory for everyone because it doesn't happen all the time, not because it's the norm.




The entire credit crisis is, in large part, because of Enron-like practices. Giving out loans to people who can't pay them back is precisely the sort of irresponsibile behavior Enron engaged in - which was to put money in places where you know you can't recover it in an effort to show some illusory profit.

The problem to a large extent is because of bad accounting practices. If you put $100 million dollars in high-risk housing loans for instance, the accountant isn't going to write off that $100 million. They're going to pretend it's still with the company, and it's in fact earning 10%-20% interest ($10M - $20M). The reality is however, most of the time you're ONLY going to get back the interest (the $10M to $20M), and the rest of the money is NOT coming back because you gave the loans to people who never could have afforded it in the first place.

Enron's model was only dissimilar in that they setup shell companies to pretend the losses never happened (rather than pretending that the loans were going to be paid back). Still, the modus operandi is the same: Pretend you're making money by dumping money and losses in places where you can never recover it, but which accounting cannot see.



> Truth be told, it's a global economy, and in a global economy production goes where it's cheapest. That's not gouging, that's business. It's been happening forever.




There's a major difference between gouging and irresponsibile profit-taking. Gouging is screwing over customers by making them pay a lot more than a product is worth. That's what oil companies and OPEC is doing. Irresponsible profit-taking is what ENRON did as I described above.



> And executive/CEO salaries are out of line in some instances, but if a CEO screws up, people get layed off or the company goes under. If the janitor screws up, the bathroom is gross. HUGE difference. Nowadays if someone makes an accounting error the CEO can even go to jail. Dumb.
> 
> If they're taking bonuses when they're not meeting numbers and laying off employees, that pisses me off. You failed, no bonus, just like the rest of us. But in general, I won't begrudge them what they've worked for. And don't understand why anyone would. If you get a job offer with bonuses, it's not like you're going to say "oh no, no bonuses, I'm happier as a wage slave" or anything, why should they?
> 
> Don.




During the Second World War, on the eve of D-day, the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces wrote a speech, just in case the invasion failed. In the speech, he said that everyone had done their job. If there is going to be any blame to be placed, it was entirely on his shoulder. Yet, the invasion suceeded, and the commander would later end up becoming one of the most popular presidents of the United States.

During the First World War, nearly 20,000 British soldiers died in a single day due to one of the most bungled operations in military history, for no gain in ground. The Supreme Commander of the British forces dined, paid calls, and had a relaxing ride on horseback while his troops died in the thousands in the mud. After the battle, less than half of the bodies of the dead were ever recovered.

CEOs are not military commanders. People don't die because of their decisions. But they affect the lives of people and their families. And when they screw up, *they must pay the price*. And it is _particularly_ true if the said "leaders" show a casual disregard for the well-being of their employees, and yet they still continue to enrich themselves even though they screwed up.

Just to demonstrate, look at the huge difference between the CEOs of the automobile companies today, and the CEO of Chrysler 20 years ago - Lee Iacocca. 

The CEOs of today were quick to beg for money from the government, and yet they still flew to Congress using expensive private jets.

Lee Iacocca by contrast, reduced his salary to *$1 per year* when Chrysler was about to go bankrupt. And he didn't ask for money from the government. He asked for a loan, and swore he would pay it back. Which he did _ahead of schedule_.

Again, leaders should be *held accountable* for the decisions they make. If you don't hold them accountable, there will be more sleezebags like the ENRON executives and less outstanding CEOs like Lee.


----------



## DaveMage

justanobody said:


> Is Scott Rouse no longer the Brand Manager?




That would be bad news for a revised GSL.


----------



## Shemeska

Zinegata said:


> Lee Iacocca by contrast, reduced his salary to *$1 per year* when Chrysler was about to go bankrupt. And he didn't ask for money from the government. He asked for a loan, and swore he would pay it back. Which he did _ahead of schedule_.




Lee Iacocca is just an awesome guy, period. His current charity work towards various areas of medical research is amazing (diabetes mostly, as his late wife was diabetic).

And I'm trying very, very hard to not elaborate on the mention of (big) labor unions as an equal cause of stagnation. Can we please move away from politics before I fall to temptation on that one...


----------



## Rel

Shemeska said:


> And I'm trying very, very hard to not elaborate on the mention of (big) labor unions as an equal cause of stagnation. Can we please move away from politics before I fall to temptation on that one...




Yes, let's avoid the politics, as usual.


----------



## joethelawyer

Delta said:


> Of course, folks should also know that the "Chicago School" of economic thought has been very highly politicized for decades, and a lot of folks think that's exactly what drove us into the current economic trouble:
> 
> Chicago school (economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)





thats true.  read anything by naomi klein and you'll see what he means.


----------



## justanobody

Dannyalcatraz said:


> But those costs don't include the costs of recompense to the IP's creators, or the various technicians who got that IP into its consumable format, the artist who designed the jacket art, or the marketing department's efforts in making the public aware of the product.




Yeah, see the class action lawsuit Music buyers vs Big Record label makers.

The price fixing done there was about the same stuff, but with a DVD the movie made the movie for the IP creators when the movie was in the theatre. They now are trying to get added sales to pad their profits with the DVDs, not get their money back for the movie on it. This excuse about marketing departments is also frail as nobody really goes off of any marketing. An in-store poster saying Sweeny Todd coming Dec 15th is all that is needed so people will know when to buy it. Don't think it is the consumers job to pay for one of the stupidest things in the world which is marketing.

There is too much advertising and marketing in the world as it is, so don't really get me started on that.

Just the fact it still does not cost that much to make a DVD or run of 100,000 of them to need to charge more than $20 ever. None of the money goes to the people doing the real work. You know, those 20 people moving the DVDs around and stuffing each one in a case and inserting the cover flap into the window. Those people make minimum wage, so so can all the artist photographers etc that made the fancy IP such as the cover flap and disc cover. You know those sitting in nice clean and safe rooms doing work versus those that have to wear masks in unsafe conditions to physically make the discs so as not to suffocate from the fumes of the stamped discs, or the silk screening of their labels, etc.



[/derail][rerail]


----------



## Chadarius

*Layoffs do not always mean "YOU'RE FIRED!"*



joethelawyer said:


> Layoff = GET YOUR ASS OUTTA HERE.  YOU'RE FIRED!
> 
> Separation of employment = GET YOUR ASS OUTTA HERE.  YOU'RE FIRED!




When you get fired its your fault. When you get laid off its usually your employers fault (poor business execution/planning, unable to cope with the recession, etc...). Don't get me wrong. It still sucks, but I'd much rather be laid off than fired. At least then I know that I wasn't let go for performance reasons. Which clearly was the case for most of those people at Wizards.


----------



## doctorhook

Chadarius said:


> When you get fired its your fault. When you get laid off its usually your employers fault (poor business execution/planning, unable to cope with the recession, etc...). Don't get me wrong. It still sucks, but I'd much rather be laid off than fired. At least then I know that I wasn't let go for performance reasons. Which clearly was the case for most of those people at Wizards.



Wait... are you saying that they _were_ laid off for (personal) performance reasons?


----------



## Phaezen

doctorhook said:


> Wait... are you saying that they _were_ laid off for (personal) performance reasons?



No, he is saying they were layed off, therefor dismissed for company reasons, not fired, which would be for personal (performance), reasons.

Phaezen


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Re Chicago School:

Read the article, and you'll find this quote: "The University of Chicago department, widely considered one of the world’s foremost economics departments, has fielded more Nobel Prize winners and John Bates Clark medalists in economics than any other university."

They're neoclassical- meaning generally they favor a hands off approach to economic policy.  IOW, not truly politicized.  That kind of theoretical approach would also not impact the empirical sales data that pops up in the majority of RW studies.


> Don't think it is the consumers job to pay for one of the stupidest things in the world which is marketing.
> 
> There is too much advertising and marketing in the world as it is




Whether you like it or not, believe in its necessity or dispute the amount needed, advertising is part of a product's real and legal cost.  If you don't want to pay for that cost, don't buy the product, or at least don't buy it until it is on sale.  Pirating isn't a legal or ethical option.

I, for one, am disgusted by the % of many modern pharmacology products' cost that is attributable to marketing (part of my job experience is in health care).  I'm not entitled to express that dislike through theft.  I can, however, purchase generics and competitors' products that may be cheaper.

Re Naomi Klein



> *Wiki*
> Klein's third book, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, was published on 4 September 2007, becoming an international and New York Times bestseller[3] translated into 20 languages.[13] The book argues that the free market policies of Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of Economics have risen to prominence in countries such as Chile under Pinochet, Russia under Yeltsin, the United States (for example in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina), and the privatization of Iraq's economy under the Coalition Provisional Authority not because they were democratically popular, but because they were pushed through while the citizens of these countries were in shock from disasters or upheavals.




This makes me laugh- historically, Chilean, Iraqi and Russian economic practices have virtually ZERO to do with free market capitalism in the Chicago School style.  Those systems are riddled with cronyism and corruption, which even UC doesn't support as desirable in a free market capitalistic system.  Indeed, such practices are as undesirable as gov't interference in the market.


----------



## justanobody

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Whether you like it or not, believe in its necessity or dispute the amount needed, advertising is part of a product's real and legal cost.  If you don't want to pay for that cost, don't buy the product, or at least don't buy it until it is on sale.  Pirating isn't a legal or ethical option.




I don't buy stupid overpriced products from people that spend too much money on marketing and then shove that price into the product cost. I won't buy anything where your advertising has had a big impact on the product cost because advertising gimmicks are stupid and for stupid people. Zoom Zoom doesn't tell squat about those vehicles and only makes things look "shiny".

I don't buy something because it is "shiny".

I also never said pirating was legal, just not to use it as the only excuse that copy shops were in poor times and business was falling.

Either a business can whine about not having customers and die while whining, or they can figure out why customers are going elsewhere and find a way to get them back and stay in business.

Customers own no sympathy to any business because the execs and cEOs of those businesses screw up. Those execs and CEOs need to stop taking those private jets and maybe the company would have more money to spend on the things it needs to.

Shareholders worried, need to step in and remove bad execs that get paid the most anyway, not the "little people" that actually get things done!

I don't appreciate being attributed with advocating piracy was the right thing to do in any event!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

justanobody said:


> I don't buy something because it is "shiny". <snip>




If that is true, I'm glad for you!

The problem is, many people do.  If marketing didn't work, businesses would abandon the practice.

But it does.  Remember what I said about pharmaceuticals?  Most of the most prescribed drugs in the USA have been beneficiaries of some of the biggest marketing campaigns.  Ad-speak like "anti-bacterial" and the Big Pharma advertising campaigns have been major contributors to the overuse and overprescription of antibiotics...and the rise of drug-resistant "superbugs."

(In general, if you're curious as to just how susceptible you really are to marketing, you might want to read the works of Paco Underhill, namely his books _Why We Buy_ and_ Call of the Mall_- they are eye-opening works about the dirty details of the force of marketing and even architecture in capitalism.) [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Buy-Science-Shopping/dp/0684849143]Amazon.com: Why We Buy: The Science Of Shopping: Paco Underhill: Books[/ame]

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Call-Mall-Geography-Shopping-Author/dp/0743235924/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b]Amazon.com: Call of the Mall: The Geography of Shopping by the Author of Why We Buy: Paco Underhill: Books[/ame]



> I don't appreciate being attributed with advocating piracy was the right thing to do in any event!




Mea culpa- it wasn't my intent to single you out and attribute that mentality to you.

However, in past (locked) threads about piracy, similar assertions were part of arguments supporting just that.


----------



## justanobody

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Mea culpa- it wasn't my intent to single you out and attribute that mentality to you.
> 
> However, in past (locked) threads about piracy, similar assertions were part of arguments supporting just that.




I don't know or recall any of those threads. I was just saying that it shouldn't be attributed to just piracy as the downfall of the "copy shop".

I know advertising works, and it makes me sad. I have to deal with people daily asking me about ads and such and get sick and tired of telling them "I don't care about silly ads. I buy something based on the products merits, not its hype." It gets rather annoying after the 40th time per day, everyday....

To get back tied to the topic itself and off the borderline economics if we haven't already crossed it without intending deeply to do so...

I would have fired the advertising department before skilled writers or PR people. That was why I brought up advertising. You can advertise something you don't have al day long and find people to "sell iceboxes to eskimos", but you better have enough people to make them iceboxes, or that advertiser ain't getting paid because you have no money coming in. The less you spend on advertising a bad product the more you can spend on quality control and let word of mouth do what it does best....advertise for free.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> I would have fired the advertising department before skilled writers or PR people.




From my perspective, even though I don't care for 4Ed*, D&D itself is one of those products that should virtually sell itself.  It has a huge base of invested consumers, and is the 800lb gorilla in its market niche.

To illustrate- in my case, I pre-ordered the Core 3 as soon as I could.  However, as I saw the ad/promo campaign roll out, I was cringing.

1) They went 100% digital with their house magazines, generating some ill-will and mistrust.

2) They declined to renew or in some cases just ended certain licenses, again gaining bad PR.

3) They _highlighted_ which sacred cows they were killing (or delaying)- that may have cost them some sales right there.  If they had kept quiet about the slaughter of the sacred cows, they'd probably have seen a 15%+ increase in pre-orders.

4) They announced changes in the OGL that would eventually become the GSL...and then didn't have it ready on day 1 of the product rollout.  How _that_ was received is well documented.

5) On top of that, WotC's track record with the electronic/programming side of gaming didn't inspire any confidence, so claims about the digital initiative were met with a lot of skepticism.

Its almost like they were trying to fail.  It was both bad marketing and PR.

_Developers_, though, IMOH, should have been kept on.

*Its a well designed product, but its not what I want from D&D.


----------



## justanobody

Dannyalcatraz said:


> *Its a well designed product, but its not what I want from D&D.




I don't think I disagree with a single thing you said in that post. 

EDIT: Except the PR part about Solice the Forum Manager that had to clean up after Gamer_zer0, and got fired for cleaning up his mess.


----------



## xechnao

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Re Chicago School:
> 
> Read the article, and you'll find this quote: "The University of Chicago department, widely considered one of the world’s foremost economics departments, has fielded more Nobel Prize winners and John Bates Clark medalists in economics than any other university."
> 
> They're neoclassical- meaning generally they favor a hands off approach to economic policy.  IOW, not truly politicized.  That kind of theoretical approach would also not impact the empirical sales data that pops up in the majority of RW studies.




Nobel prizes in economics are more political (read propaganda) than any other prize of the scientific fields. The awards have less to do with the development of universally practical and applied endeavours and sometimes a lot about theoric structures that are totaly irrelevant with the real effects of economy. This is because while nowadays economy is the driving and guiding force behind scientific development, it is not a science by itself (even if it is proclaimed to be) because in economy you do not have a rigorous goal but rather a policy of adjustment dictated by ecologic AND SOCIAL dynamics.


----------



## Maggan

Dannyalcatraz said:


> It was both bad marketing and PR.




Interestingly enough most of those points would not have been under the control of the marketing department.

Marketing works with what they are given as much as any other department. If they are given lemons, they'll try to make lemonade, but they sure ain't gonna start handing out delicious cake and champagne. 

I think WotC could have done a lot better for the marketing for D&D, but I'm not so sure that marketing people themselves are the chief suspects here.

Admittedly, being in marketing myself I must admit some bias. 

/M


----------



## joethelawyer

xechnao said:


> Nobel prizes in economics are more political (read propaganda) than any other prize of the scientific fields. The awards have less to do with the development of universally practical and applied endeavours and sometimes a lot about theoric structures that are totaly irrelevant with the real effects of economy. This is because while nowadays economy is the driving and guiding force behind scientific development, it is not a science by itself (even if it is proclaimed to be) because in economy you do not have a rigorous goal but rather a policy of adjustment dictated by ecologic AND SOCIAL dynamics.




if i can i will give xp for that.  nicely put.


----------



## Delta

Dannyalcatraz said:


> They're neoclassical- meaning generally they favor a hands off approach to economic policy. IOW, not truly politicized. That kind of theoretical approach would also not impact the empirical sales data that pops up in the majority of RW studies...
> 
> This makes me laugh- historically, Chilean, Iraqi and Russian economic practices have virtually ZERO to do with free market capitalism in the Chicago School style.




I'm sure you have your opinions, but what you're saying doesn't line up with what I read anywhere else.

Chicago School categorized as Neoliberal -- Chicago school of economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
Chicago School involved in Washington Concensus -- Washington Consensus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Chicago Boys, 25 Chilean ministers trained under Milton Friedman -- Chicago Boys - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## TheGM

joethelawyer said:


> if i can i will give xp for that.  nicely put.




If he had applied it to all Nobel prizes and not just economics, I would too. Sadly some still think the Nobel prize has the authority it did in the days when Solzhenitsyn won one, and that just isn't true.

Don.


----------



## Plane Sailing

It seems this has devolved into politics rather than the initial response to the layoffs, even after Rel's warning, so I'm closing this down. 

Clunk.


----------

