Slashdot Mirror
Series on Wizard Of the Coast
Chanteuse writes "Salon is doing a several-part series on the corporate atmosphere of Wizards of the Coast, leading to it's eventual sellout to Hasbro. It's sad, in a nostalgic sort of way.
Part One is up on Salon." Part Two has come out as well - it's a piece that could come from any number of company, but the background of Wizards Of The Coast makes it more interesting. I played Magic religiously up until Fallen Empires, and then drifted in and out - but my favorite era was still Arabian Nights before the umpteen bazillion different cards. But I suppose all things change.
I actually started playing this when it first came out - my roomate at the time would have his friends over all the time, and I picked it up from them.
The game was a lot of fun, and the math implicit behind building decks was a cool intellectual exercise.
I even entered a couple of tournements, and did reasonably well.
But soon after, it seemed that the "collectible" part of the game took over from the "fun" part of the game, and when that happened, I sold my cards to my brother in law (for like $50) and left the game.
Imagine my shock when 6 months later I saw an internet price list showing the Black Lotus card at $500.00 each! I had had 2 of them....
Bleah. Capitalism sure knows how to suck the fun out of games.
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
Wizards of the Coast constantly set high prices on Magic cards. With kids who were addicted and had nothing better to do, they were glad to pay $4/pack for 12 cards.
They had the damned nerve to keep upping the prices while they became more and more popular. Yeah, supply and demand and all that, but we were such damn suckers for it.
Not to mention every new edition had cards more powerful than the last, which meant that if you wanted to keep playing, you had to keep paying. I sure am glad I realized what a waste of money it all was when I started seriously considering paying $180 for a Black Lotus.
As far as I can tell, Hasbro's business model is as follows:
* Identify reasonably profitable gaming company
* Purchase said company
* Identify 20/80 products - that is, the 20% of that company's products that are the most profitable.
* Terminate all products not in the top 20%
* Kill original version of the 20% products, then release a dumbed down version with (a) any complex rule removed (b) simplified, glaring graphics that appeal to (unsophisticated) 2 year olds. In other words, fast-food-ize the games.
* Sit back and rake in the bucks.
When they acquired Avalon Hill it was a sad day.
sPh
I wouldn't have described purchasing TSR as "cherry picking." TSR was clearly on its way out and without Wizards of the Coast (WotC) would have gone under. WotC had previously failed to turn a profit on role-playing games, and TSR's sad state was more evidence that role-playing games were a bad idea. It took alot of faith to buy TSR.
I was working for Evermore Entertainment in 1997. Evermore was developing for TSR the concisely named Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Core Rules CD-ROM 2.0. I met a number of TSR and WotC employees over the course of my employment. I got to hear, first and second hand, about the problems inside the company. I visited TSR's headquarters in Lake Geneva during the WotC purchase. I even met, as part of a larger group, with Peter Adkison.
I can vouch that Peter was still a huge gaming geek in 1997. It was clear that he wanted TSR because he loved it too much to let it die. Whenever Evermore met with him, he reinforced that he wanted our software to support as many quirk home-brew rules as possible, after all, it needed to work with his game. I got to hear about his plans for the Game Centers, a gamer's home away from home. It would have computers built into the tables to store and refernce notes; projector screens to show maps and monster pictures. While he hoped to make a profit, it was clear that he just wanted to share great things with all of the gamers of the world. (I also discovered that he is the most aggressive driver I have ever riden with, and that he likes lots of ketchup on his burgers.) He would be completely welcome at my gaming table, and I suspect most gamers would be happy to game with him.
Just before the purchase, TSR looked doomed. The previous owners had run the company into the ground. I later learned that the previous owners had detested gamers and the entire hobby. They had simply bought in for the money. They viewed gamers as cattle to be milked and treated as poorly as possible. Garbage like Spellfire (A tarted up version of the card game War with badly recycled art) was released with the belief if you make it, gamers will buy it. Games were kept bland and safe. Older gamers felt abandoned by the company and stopped purchasing products. No real effort to draw new blood was made, so new gamers ended up playing hipper, newer, edgier games like Vampire: the Masquerade. There was no new blood. Sales were dropping every quarter. Debts were piling up, thier printer refused further work until existing debt was paid. After the buyout, employees openly cursed the previous owners.
TSR's continued existance was an embarrassment. I would never had guessed that it could be saved, that its bad name could be salvaged. It was brave of WotC to purchase it under these conditions. Beyond the initial buyout of the company, WotC had to pay off TSR's creditors. Significant time, effort, and money were spent revitalizing the TSR product lines. The rescue of Dungeons & Dragons was amazing. D&D went from a has been contender that gamers looked down their noses at to relatively new and hip. Suddenly friends who haven't played D&D in years were back and enjoying the heck out of it. It was alot of effort to recover the D&D name, and I believe Peter Adkison's love of the game was responsible.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
I was into the magic scene pretty heavily for a while, knew some people very close to people @ WOTC and know some people who work/worked there, and I never heard anything about the sex romps or all the goths who worked there.
That's some pretty fucked up stuff, and it's very shocking to hear..
Magic died with the Pro Tour anyway. All of the rules lawyers and professional cheaters came out of the woodwork and took the fun out of the game.. the first couple tournaments were ok, had a good time, but after that, I feel the game rapidly degenerated. Everyone geared up for the next "money" tournament. There were no more fun/free play days at the local comic shops, as no one went. Everyone was too busy practicing with their playtest group for the next big tournament, the next big cash prize.
And if you weren't on the inside of these cliques, you were pretty fucked. Newbies aka "scrubs" were looked down on with an incredible amount of scorn, and viewed as easy targets to cheat against, get your easy 2-0 win, and move to the next round. I was on the inside of a clique, and we pretty much played by the rules, but I admit I cheated a couple times. Not so much as drawing extra cards, but allowing my opponent to do something illegal/wrong to my advantage (forgetting to draw a card, things along those lines), and not tell them. Technically by the rules, that IS cheating.
I got out of the game a couple years ago, as did most of my friends. One of them still plays, still going across the country for tournaments every month, practicing most weekends. He's going to Detroit for a tournament this weekend. And yes, he has a successful career and until very recently, a significant other.
And no, he has never won the big money, and likely never will.
BilldaCat
I know from personal experience that that's what DIDN'T happen at Origin. (You know, Ultima, Wing Commander, those games)
As the screws tightened on the working environment, the politically naive were axed, regardless of their talent and dedication, and the politically savvy were kept on, because they didn't make waves. This is not the way to run a creative venture. Over time, the creative geniuses who WON'T wear suits and punch a clock from 9-5 either leave or are fired. Then the games suck, and people stop buying them, and you don't have a company anymore.
Origin was not profitable when they got bought by EA in the late 80's/early 90's (I don't remember exactly when it was). Origin began showing profits with UO, and EA then scrubbed the entire company, destroying any vestiges of the Origin corporate identity (which at that time was horribly atrophied). It was almost inevitable, but that doesn't make it any less sad.
By definition, suits can not make video games. Any suit that tells you he can, is lying.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
*Sigh*
Nothing like a picking up the first 7 cards and having two Savanah Lion and two Swords To Plowshares and three plains.
/me daydreams about past youth.
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
Advanced Dungeons & Dragons... From Hasbro!
EEEEEEEEEEEEKKK!
And the brethren went away edified.
The problem with this kind of argument, and the argument presented in the post above, is twofold. First, it is based on what I believe to be a flawed reading of the Bible. Second, it ignores the extremely important doctrine of free will.
A lot of the Bible is misinterpreted. Because it is a received text, and the time during which it was written is long, long gone, people who take a literalist approach to the Bible are saddled with a lot of things that simply do not hold. Christians who point to teachings from Leviticus and Deutoronomy are attempting to follow rules that Christ himself mocked. They read the Bible, but do not understand it--Christ mocked the Pharisees for excessively strict adherence to Temple law. See The Humor of Christ by Elton Trueblood. It is entirely possible, even probable, that Christ was making fun of Pharisees in the verse on adultery that I paraphrase above.
But I think the real argument against the AC's post, troll though it may be, is that it completely ignores the doctrine of free will, specifically as it relates to RPGs.
If you accept that man has free will, which most branches of Christianity do, then you accept that God gave man free will so that mankind would freely choose to be in relationship with God, because God loved mankind enough that he would not force us into a relationship with him. People give lip service to this idea, but rarely follow it to its logical conclusion, which is this: in order to make a choice, you must be cognizant of the fact that there IS a choice, and you must know what you are choosing between. You must be able to imagine the consequences of making a wrong choice: "If I punch this jerk in the face, he'll hit me back and we'll probably end up getting arrested." Clearly, the Lord gave us our imaginations to USE, not to shut away. Just as clearly, thought CANNOT equal deed--if it did, then you would suffer spiritual consequences every time you made a decision of any kind, no matter what your ultimate choice.
I strongly believe that using your imagination is not and cannot be wrong, even from a spiritual point of view. It is patently obvious that you do not cast magic spells when you play an RPG that has magic, just as you do not actually shoot the border guards in a spy RPG, or pilot a spaceship in a sci-fi RPG. Satan does not lurk between the covers of RPGs. Satan hides behind those who twist the word of God into a message of hatred and intolerance. Remember this: John 3:16 says "For God so loved the world, he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but shall have everlasting life," and John 3:17 doesn't say "unless you're gay or not white or a woman." That's the word of man, my friends. That's what you have to watch out for.
So you're saying that if I believed in Hotmail's product, I should have stayed on even after they were bought by Microsoft - even though Microsoft itself doesn't believe in the product, only the revenue?
And you're saying that I should do this even if the new corporate culture thinks what I wear to work is more important than the work I do? Even if the new culture features top-down management that totally devalues my experience and ability? That I'm twice as evil if the new culture doesn't fit my lifestyle preferences?
Or are you just trolling?
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
One could equally well argue that the people who insist that employees dress a particular way aren't committed to the product but rather to a certain lifestyle. After all, they seem to value a particular mode of dress and behavior over keeping the people who developed and understand the product. Equally, the employees who stayed on might not be the ones who value the product but rather the ones who are unable to find a job elsewhere. Dumping the top performers to keep the guys your competitors won't touch is hardly a way to improve the company.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm personally very happy that my employer doesn't demand formal dress. They're perfectly happy to allow employees who don't come into contact with outsiders to dress any way that complies with the needs of safety and modesty. I'd be very worried about management that cared more about the way I dress than the amount that I contribute to my projects, since it represents a focus on perception rather than reality.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
Remember?
Pogs
Baseball cards
Comics
Any classic RPG
Pokemon
Beanie Babies
Cabbage Patch Kids
Garbage Pail Kids
The Hunt Brother's Silver fiasco
Currently it's Harry Potter, but I think that star is already sagging. History repeating itself over and over, like no-one pays any attention. Don't buy high, get it because you like it, ignore the hype.
--
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
It's good for productivity that more of the innovative, flexible firms are being bought up by more traditional, "staid" firms, and that the culture inside of the smaller firms is changing.
If someone decides to stay on at the place even when they have to wear a suit and come in 9 to 5 instead of having a food and soda filled, T-shirt and Nerf office, that means that they are really committed to the place and the product that the place is selling.
The folks who drop out in the buyout process are the ones who aren't committed to the product but to a certain lifestyle. Over time, they would lose interest and motivation even if the smaller, "creative" firm weren't getting bought out. The ones who stick it out eventually combine the creativity of the smaller firm with the knowledge, power and reach of the larger one. I guess that's what PR rats mean when they talk about "synergy" in the merger process.
One outcome of this is that when the big fish eats the little fish it shouldn't lay people off- let the process happen by attrition. The ones who don't want to stay are the ones who couldn't cut the mustard anyway..
Goat sex free since 2001