I found myself thinking about this last night as I lay in bed: it's Christmas, I wonder if WotC will lay off more staff? As much as I hate to think about it, it's been a holiday tradition the last few years. Is it happening again this year?
But... it's tradition!
(Seriously; they've been doing this since WotC bought D&D... probably before, too. Not likely to change.)
|
I found myself thinking about this last night as I lay in bed: it's Christmas, I wonder if WotC will lay off more staff? As much as I hate to think about it, it's been a holiday tradition the last few years. Is it happening again this year?But... it's tradition!
(Seriously; they've been doing this since WotC bought D&D... probably before, too. Not likely to change.)
Considering Peter Adkinson resigned after the first Hasbro Christmas layoffs, I highly doubt he laid people off at Christmas before he sold the company.
People have to remember, ever since dude sold the company, Hasbro has called the shots, not WotC. I'm almost certain dude probably has some regret about selling out to a company that doesn't care. And I'm sure he's not happy that Hasbro has caused WotC to diminish in popular opinion since they took over.
Didn't they lay Andy Collins (and others) off this spring/summer?
Maybe they just handed out Christmas presents early this year...
Sack the people responsable for forcing the new and much more useless character builer on their continualy dwindling fan base.
Also sack the people who find ever more inventive ways of turning WotC’s fan base against themselves.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I found myself thinking about this last night as I lay in bed: it's Christmas, I wonder if WotC will lay off more staff? As much as I hate to think about it, it's been a holiday tradition the last few years. Is it happening again this year?Xmas is when most corporations do their layoffs, or right after the holiday if it's sales. For all we know Paizo may be laying off some mook staff whose names we don't know as well.
While I don't think Paizo has 'mooks' (Lisa's put her time in the Warehouse (had to be careful with spelling there!) and has said she doesn't want a company where she doesn't know all her employees), the first part is correct. We're all on pins and needles at my place of work too.
This isn't a subject I'm very familiar with. Do you know the logic behind this trend?
Xmas is when most corporations do their layoffs, or right after the holiday if it's sales. For all we know Paizo may be laying off some mook staff whose names we don't know as well.
As I understand it, if you lay people off before Christmas you don't have to pay for their Christmas and New Years holidays. Typically, that's the corporate argument, anyway, particularly if a given company offers a generous holiday period.
I don't think that particular justification is satisfactory for such a low blow, personally.
Another possibility though, is that it's fiscal year related. If a company's fiscal year ends in December, they might want to start the new fiscal year with fewer expenditures. Still low.
|
Id imagine its a combination of the two. If they are over budget, or something along those lines, and need to be under by years end, the quickest way to lower your costs by a significant amount is likely to lay some people off, especialy, as said before, if you are going to have to pay for their Christmas and New Years holidays, bonuses or Christmas gifts from the company, etc.
Unfortunate for those who are laid off, for sure, but unless you waiting til the last minute to do your Christmas shopping, etc, then I dont see it as any worse, really, than being laid off at any other time.
Unfortunate for those who are laid off, for sure, but unless you waiting til the last minute to do your Christmas shopping, etc, then I dont see it as any worse, really, than being laid off at any other time.
It is a bit, just because most industries won't do much if any hiring until a fair bit into the new year. For many professional careers if you're laid off in December you can expect to be out of a job until at least February if not spring.
Sack the people responsable for forcing the new and much more useless character builer on their continualy dwindling fan base.
Also sack the people who find ever more inventive ways of turning WotC’s fan base against themselves.
This is not typically how these Christmas layoffs happen.
They don't typically get rid of useless people, but instead, get rid of the folks with the most experience and biggest contribution to their particular areas.
This is not typically how these Christmas layoffs happen.
They don't typically get rid of useless people, but instead, get rid of the folks with the most experience and biggest contribution to their particular areas.
Is this due to salaries being "too high"?
Yeah the CEO's salary. Gotta justify their bonuses.
Chief Technical Officer
|
(Seriously; they've been doing this since WotC bought D&D... probably before, too. Not likely to change.)Considering Peter Adkinson resigned after the first Hasbro Christmas layoffs, I highly doubt he laid people off at Christmas before he sold the company.
No—he's right. I was laid off (along with almost everybody who wasn't working on Magic: The Gathering at the time) in December 1995. Hasbro purchased Wizards in 1999. Peter resigned in December 2000.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
No—he's right. I was laid off (along with almost everybody who wasn't working on Magic: The Gathering at the time) in December 1995. Hasbro purchased Wizards in 1999. Peter resigned in December 2000.
Is this far enough in the past that I can insinuate that it was because you were "fraternizing" with your fellow employees?
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
As I understand it, if you lay people off before Christmas you don't have to pay for their Christmas and New Years holidays. Typically, that's the corporate argument, anyway, particularly if a given company offers a generous holiday period.
I don't think that particular justification is satisfactory for such a low blow, personally.
Another possibility though, is that it's fiscal year related. If a company's fiscal year ends in December, they might want to start the new fiscal year with fewer expenditures. Still low.
It's mainly the fiscal year.
The Christmas and New Years' Holiday pay issue is pretty much irrelevant—Wizards has, to my knowledge, generally provided pretty respectable severance packages to those they've laid off. There's no significant short-term savings to be had.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Is this far enough in the past that I can insinuate that it was because you were "fraternizing" with your fellow employees?
No—he's right. I was laid off (along with almost everybody who wasn't working on Magic: The Gathering at the time) in December 1995. Hasbro purchased Wizards in 1999. Peter resigned in December 2000.
Have you read this? In those days, "'fraternizing'" with my fellow employees would be a reason to keep me on board!
|
|
No—he's right. I was laid off (along with almost everybody who wasn't working on Magic: The Gathering at the time) in December 1995. Hasbro purchased Wizards in 1999. Peter resigned in December 2000.(Seriously; they've been doing this since WotC bought D&D... probably before, too. Not likely to change.)Considering Peter Adkinson resigned after the first Hasbro Christmas layoffs, I highly doubt he laid people off at Christmas before he sold the company.
Thanks for the correction. WotC really wasn't on my radar until they bought TSR (and really not until 3.0 was released; I wasn't gaming much in the mid to late 90s for various reasons - mostly because my 1e group disbanded because of life, my Shadowrun group disbanded because of personalities, and I never liked 2e or WoD stuff - and have played exactly one game of M:tG in my life).
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Is this far enough in the past that I can insinuate that it was because you were "fraternizing" with your fellow employees?
No—he's right. I was laid off (along with almost everybody who wasn't working on Magic: The Gathering at the time) in December 1995. Hasbro purchased Wizards in 1999. Peter resigned in December 2000.Have you read this? In those days, "'fraternizing'" with my fellow employees would be a reason to keep me on board!
So, can I take this as a confirmation of the accuracy of the information in that article?
(I read it long, long ago, when it was first published.)
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
So, can I take this as a confirmation of the accuracy of the information in that article?Have you read this? In those days, "'fraternizing'" with my fellow employees would be a reason to keep me on board!
I think most of his stated facts are generally correct—though he makes it sound like everyone was involved in the "fraternization," which isn't the case. More importantly, I don't always agree with the assessments he made on some of the cause-and-effect stuff. On the whole, I think John painted things as black-and-white, cut-and-dry, and it's just not that simple. And while he brings in some facts to support his point of view, sometimes he leaves out facts that might undermine his viewpoint, or at least raise other questions.
For example, he didn't mention that one of the participants in the "Truth or Swill" game was a recent hire who had, shortly before the incident, told her friends that one day she'd like to sue some company for everything they were worth so that she'd never have to work again. Maybe John didn't know that, but that's a pretty key factor in how Lisa and I responded.
Maybe it's just because I'm named in there, but I feel like the article can be summarized as "Vic and Lisa Made Peter Grow Up, and That's Why Wizards Isn't Special Anymore," and I think that's a pretty unfair picture.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Oh man, it has been a long time since I read that - I didn't realize you and Lisa were identified as the buzzkills that ruined all the fun. ;-)
Edit: Yeah, rereading it reminds me of how much I thought the article was skeezy in the first place. I think I went on an uncharacteristic rant (hah!) about it on ENWorld back in the day. It struck me as mud-slinging/intentionally provocative/sour grapes at the time, and continues to read that way.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Maybe it's just because I'm named in there, but I feel like the article can be summarized as "Vic and Lisa Made Peter Grow Up, and That's Why Wizards Isn't Special Anymore," and I think that's a pretty unfair picture.
If I read that article 15 years ago, I would have thought 'What a bunch of killjoys.'
Today my reaction was, 'Well, thank goodness someone had some sense.'
Have you read this? In those days, "'fraternizing'" with my fellow employees would be a reason to keep me on board!
I hadn't read that. How surreal. (Even given that I'd heard WotC=Orgytown back in the day rumors.)
That's clearly a very slanted piece, but the writer doesn't have the particular skill of camouflaging that, so strangely even having read that I feel like I have a pretty good idea of what went down, even if it's not exactly what he wanted me to think.
|
|
This isn't a subject I'm very familiar with. Do you know the logic behind this trend?I found myself thinking about this last night as I lay in bed: it's Christmas, I wonder if WotC will lay off more staff? As much as I hate to think about it, it's been a holiday tradition the last few years. Is it happening again this year?Xmas is when most corporations do their layoffs, or right after the holiday if it's sales. For all we know Paizo may be laying off some mook staff whose names we don't know as well.
If you lower the headcount before the new year it shows as a cost cutting and looks good on the books. Back when I worked at the "big yellow wireless phone co" it happened every year.
So, can I take this as a confirmation of the accuracy of the information in that article?Have you read this? In those days, "'fraternizing'" with my fellow employees would be a reason to keep me on board!
I think most of his stated facts are generally correct—though he makes it sound like everyone was involved in the "fraternization," which isn't the case. More importantly, I don't always agree with the assessments he made on some of the cause-and-effect stuff. On the whole, I think John painted things as black-and-white, cut-and-dry, and it's just not that simple. And while he brings in some facts to support his point of view, sometimes he leaves out facts that might undermine his viewpoint, or at least raise other questions.
For example, he didn't mention that one of the participants in the "Truth or Swill" game was a recent hire who had, shortly before the incident, told her friends that one day she'd like to sue some company for everything they were worth so that she'd never have to work again. Maybe John didn't know that, but that's a pretty key factor in how Lisa and I responded.
Maybe it's just because I'm named in there, but I feel like the article can be summarized as "Vic and Lisa Made Peter Grow Up, and That's Why Wizards Isn't Special Anymore," and I think that's a pretty unfair picture.
That's not really the impression I got from the article. The author does mention things like sexual harassment laws in that area of the article. The impression I got was that Adkison had a great dream but was essentially naive in this regards. Add your anecdote without adding something to bolster Peter Adkison's position and I think the reader comes away with the impression that Peter Atkinson is not naive but just a dim wit. Presuming that naivety is closer to the truth it seems to read fine to me.
Maybe it's just because I'm named in there, but I feel like the article can be summarized as "Vic and Lisa Made Peter Grow Up, and That's Why Wizards Isn't Special Anymore," and I think that's a pretty unfair picture.
I read that a few years back, and walked away thinking not that you two were the bad guys, and more that a bunch of alternative-for-the-sake-of-being-alternative folks were whining because they had to live in the real world now.
He seemed to rather enjoy his vindictiveness in sending McCracken and the Star Trek guy packing as well - it all smacked of "I'm the cool hipster geek, and you're the lame stereotypical geek, get lost!"
Not that working at the WotC Orgyland wouldn't be a fun job or anything...
The impression I got from the article was "I am the greatest and the company should've done everything I wanted. Not like those mundane suits or THE MAN or those guys even we nerds pick on (Am I right guys?)." He comes off as a whiny child who's throwing a temper tantrum because the company was expected to act like an adult, not a reckless and hormone driven teenager.
As was already stated, WotC is somewhat well known for having a very good severance package. I'm not sure you can really call them evil or corporate shills when they go out of their way to make the transition as easy and comfortable to the previous employee.
That was a fascinating article. I'd never read it before and I had absolutely no clue about how Wizards started or ended up getting bought up by Hasbro.
What was Everway like? Anyone around here ever play it?
|
|
So, can I take this as a confirmation of the accuracy of the information in that article?Have you read this? In those days, "'fraternizing'" with my fellow employees would be a reason to keep me on board!
I think most of his stated facts are generally correct—though he makes it sound like everyone was involved in the "fraternization," which isn't the case. More importantly, I don't always agree with the assessments he made on some of the cause-and-effect stuff. On the whole, I think John painted things as black-and-white, cut-and-dry, and it's just not that simple. And while he brings in some facts to support his point of view, sometimes he leaves out facts that might undermine his viewpoint, or at least raise other questions.
For example, he didn't mention that one of the participants in the "Truth or Swill" game was a recent hire who had, shortly before the incident, told her friends that one day she'd like to sue some company for everything they were worth so that she'd never have to work again. Maybe John didn't know that, but that's a pretty key factor in how Lisa and I responded.
Maybe it's just because I'm named in there, but I feel like the article can be summarized as "Vic and Lisa Made Peter Grow Up, and That's Why Wizards Isn't Special Anymore," and I think that's a pretty unfair picture.
The guy who wrote the article sounds incredibly bitter. I'm glad you and Lisa ended up building the wonderful company you did.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
What was Everway like? Anyone around here ever play it?
I own four copies. Everway remains one of my favorite role-playing games.
It feels a lot like street-level Amber, with PCs having knowledge of gateways that allow travel between near-by "spheres" (dimensions) made up of "realms" (areas joined by common cultures), these gates presumably created long ago when someone very powerful punched holes in the fabric of reality. Most of the accessible dimensions have two gates, not terribly far from one another. Some rare ones have four or six. One, Fourcorner, has a realm, Roundwander, with several dozen gates. In the middle of Roundwander has grown up an inter-dimensional marketplace town: Everway.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Were the gates built to trap an interdimensional monster known as the Snare, capable of killing gods?
(grin) Nobody knows.
But in the center of Roundwander is a pyramid, almost finished. It has exactly half the number of stones as the realm has gates, so the common assumption is that some being -- able to move naturally through dimensions and create gates in its wake -- wandered about through the near-by spheres, collecting blocks for its mysterious project.
That's incredibly intriguing. I'm going to have to keep an eye out for it in little hole-in-the-wall places throughout the world, just in case a copy happens to be languishing in a corner waiting for me to pick it up.
|
|
I definitely agree on this article using a slanted point of view, and I can see why you think its making you (Vic) and Lisa out to be the ones who ruined the company, etc.
To me though, it looks like you two were the only ones who had your heads on straight, while Peter was, unfortunately, having a hard time letting go of the 70s, or something along those lines.
Of course, this could be my relative lack of knowledge of how things were 'back in the day', as Im still in my mid 20s, but still.
So, can I take this as a confirmation of the accuracy of the information in that article?Have you read this? In those days, "'fraternizing'" with my fellow employees would be a reason to keep me on board!
I think most of his stated facts are generally correct—though he makes it sound like everyone was involved in the "fraternization," which isn't the case. More importantly, I don't always agree with the assessments he made on some of the cause-and-effect stuff. On the whole, I think John painted things as black-and-white, cut-and-dry, and it's just not that simple. And while he brings in some facts to support his point of view, sometimes he leaves out facts that might undermine his viewpoint, or at least raise other questions.
For example, he didn't mention that one of the participants in the "Truth or Swill" game was a recent hire who had, shortly before the incident, told her friends that one day she'd like to sue some company for everything they were worth so that she'd never have to work again. Maybe John didn't know that, but that's a pretty key factor in how Lisa and I responded.
Maybe it's just because I'm named in there, but I feel like the article can be summarized as "Vic and Lisa Made Peter Grow Up, and That's Why Wizards Isn't Special Anymore," and I think that's a pretty unfair picture.
An interesting, if slanted article. I'm sorry you had to be the wet blanket in that situation. That sucks. I'd be interested in reading a rebuttal, or at least another version of the same story told from someone else's point of view, but I'll understand if it never gets written.
That said, yeah...I would have loved to join in on the orgy too.
A friend of mine who, until recently, worked at WotC used to tell me stories of the company that I couldn't believe. Such as wanting to buy a helicopter for the executives, just because it would be cool. He basically said it was a company run by hippies and judging by that article I can see what he meant.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
I like to believe that most people who read the article realize that there is a middle ground between "anything goes" and "no fun allowed," even though it's painted as binary.
The other big thing that's treated as black-and-white that really isn't:
The "professionalization" of Wizards (for want of a better term) did not come as an overnight reaction to the "Truth or Swill" game, and it certainly didn't come about just because Lisa and I said it needed to happen.
Peter's goal to "make games as big as movies" predated even my involvement in the company, but I think most people who heard it at the time thought it was a pipe dream. Then, shortly after Magic became an overnight hit in August 1993, and phrases like "millions of dollars" actually started coming up for real, a lot of people started to get the inkling that it was actually possible. So Peter called a shareholder meeting, and said that if we wanted to go for that goal, he thought it was within reach, but we'd have to have a more professional approach to the way we did things. So did we want to give up some of the lassez-faire attitudes to business and go for it, or did we want to keep up business as usual, and recognize that some of those things could hamper our potential? The shareholders were pretty much universally on the "go for it" side. (I don't recall whether John Tynes was around for that meeting or if he came later.)
I think that at that time, Peter didn't realize how *much* needed to change—I think he thought he was mainly talking about things like not just hiring jobless friends for every open position—but, whether Peter fully understood the ramifications of it or not, *that* was the moment when things started to change—because the shareholders, including Peter—agreed that they need to. For the most part, changes were gradual from there as we grew. The "Truth or Swill" incident just drew the line more crisply.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
A friend of mine who, until recently, worked at WotC used to tell me stories of the company that I couldn't believe. Such as wanting to buy a helicopter for the executives, just because it would be cool. He basically said it was a company run by hippies and judging by that article I can see what he meant.
I can only think of one or two people that might accurately be described as hippies, and I don't recall anybody seriously talking about a helicopter.
If you take that story as written it would appear that Lisa and Vic are responsible for 4e...only kidding guys.
I think that ultimately, it's kind of ironic that the guy who wrote up the article summarizing the rise and fall of WotC's hopes and dreams really only worked there for about a year. (Or, so it seemed to me from the article)
|
|
For the most part, changes were gradual from there as we grew. The "Truth or Swill" incident just drew the line more crisply.
A better example of what the truth or swill story reminded me of: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZA2dQlx2LKI
There are tons more, but not so many I can find on youtube. :)