But above all that is the fact that their coffee shop, Seattle's Best, is twice as good as most and five times as good as Starbucks.
Actually Seattle's Best is owned by Starbucks. Found this out because ther is a Seattle's Best on my campus. They were talking about having run out of a Starbuck's brand of holiday coffe. I asked why they even sold it. She told me that all of their products come from Starbuck's because that was the parent company.
But above all that is the fact that their coffee shop, Seattle's Best, is twice as good as most and five times as good as Starbucks.Actually Seattle's Best is owned by Starbucks. Found this out because ther is a Seattle's Best on my campus. They were talking about having run out of a Starbuck's brand of holiday coffe. I asked why they even sold it. She told me that all of their products come from Starbuck's because that was the parent company.
I'd heard that before, but it's never been an issue for me. The fact is that the coffee tastes good and they have a fairly tasty selection of overpriced food.
Management tone deafness
Flood of product
Abrupt product cancellations
Spin about nothing being wrong
Emphasis on boxed sets :)
These apply to any corporation, aside from the boxed sets, though. Those all apply to 3e throughout just about every year.
Dude, you hate 4e. And that's cool, whatever, you don't like the game. But that doesn't make it as bad as the often named "T$R." Get back to me when WotC's CEO starts to basically attempt money laundering through ownership of a different IP and then the company begins to sue it's own fansites.
Also, there's a bit of a difference between "This product is no longer announced" and "This product cannot be made because we can't pay the printer."
Management tone deafness
Flood of product
Abrupt product cancellations
Spin about nothing being wrong
Emphasis on boxed sets :)These apply to any corporation, aside from the boxed sets, though. Those all apply to 3e throughout just about every year.
Dude, you hate 4e. And that's cool, whatever, you don't like the game. But that doesn't make it as bad as the often named "T$R." Get back to me when WotC's CEO starts to basically attempt money laundering through ownership of a different IP and then the company begins to sue it's own fansites.
Also, there's a bit of a difference between "This product is no longer announced" and "This product cannot be made because we can't pay the printer."
It's never a complete match-up. There are just some similarities.
This all said, I think that the Essentials line is a step in the right direction--actually, several correct steps--based on my original objections to 4e and my needs as an old school gamer.
I've picked up three Essentials sets in the past few months, specifically the Dungeon, City and Wilderness Dungeon Tiles sets, which I can easily use with my Pathfinder game, 3.5, 3.0, or even old 1st ed AD&D which I still have the books for (and use).
The other "Essentials"? Well, I'd like the pogs from the Red Box, the DM set and the Monster Vault. I'm not that interested in the rest of the contents, but after watching some online reviews, I'm glad that my major objection to the 4e MM was addressed, namely that it's a collection of statblocks with so-so pictures and flavortext so bland that you can't tell what the monsters are if you blank out the names. (Really, read the 4e MM description of the Unicorn and see if there's anything in the description that describes anything beyond some generically graceful fey.) The new Monster Vault book? A lot more in the way of actual text, not that I've had a chance to actually read any of it.
I'll also admit that I like the pogs because I don't like having to deal with too much clutter with miniatures, but the pogs are a simple solution.
|
Get back to me when WotC's CEO starts to basically attempt money laundering through ownership of a different IP and then the company begins to sue it's own fansites.
I don't know about money laundering, but they were pretty heavy handed with their CnD notices against many fan sites...Masterplan, to name one. That required the user to have a subscription to DDi to use yet WotC jumped on that like Mike Tyson on an Ear.
I don't hate 4e. I like it a lot. I DO hate WotC and their customer communication and policies. They drove me away and so I refuse to support them any longer.
|
And the Wingdings font predicted 9/11. Any other meaningless gibberish you want to spout?Do you realize that a very easy typo is "$E" ?
Dude, you hate 4e. And that's cool, whatever, you don't like the game. But that doesn't make it as bad as the often named "T$R."
Sure! The computer antagonist in 2001: A Space Odyssey is named HAL 9000.
H+1=IA+1=B
L+1=M
Some speculate that this is intentional.
|
|
And the Wingdings font predicted 9/11. Any other meaningless gibberish you want to spout?Do you realize that a very easy typo is "$E" ?
Dude, you hate 4e. And that's cool, whatever, you don't like the game. But that doesn't make it as bad as the often named "T$R."
Woo Wha???? Did it? Dude that is crazy? i gotta go open up my Office 07 and see what it is predicting now.
Thanks for tha heads up brother.
Borders, though, seems to stock a *lot* more D&D than Pathfinder... but then "stocks" is not the same as "sells," and, unlike the hobby trade, the book trade buys their merchandise with the ability to return it if it doesn't sell.
My local Borders here in Auckland, New Zealand seems to have two D&D RPG books - Worlds and Monsters and one of the early adventures. No Pathfinder. They do have the FR and Dragonlance fiction though.
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
At least WotC hasn't started mass producing a game no one ever played, I am looking at you Buck Rogers.I remember sitting in on a TSR sales presentation at a trade show in the early '90s when they announced yet another Buck Rogers game (probably "High Adventure Cliffhangers"). Some retailers audibly groaned, and Jim Ward, who was making the presentation, said "That's right—we'll keep making it until you start buying it."
Awesome.
At least WotC hasn't started mass producing a game no one ever played, I am looking at you Buck Rogers.I remember sitting in on a TSR sales presentation at a trade show in the early '90s when they announced yet another Buck Rogers game (probably "High Adventure Cliffhangers"). Some retailers audibly groaned, and Jim Ward, who was making the presentation, said "That's right—we'll keep making it until you start buying it."Awesome.
+1, I want this to surprise me, but it really doesn't.
Sure! The computer antagonist in 2001: A Space Odyssey is named HAL 9000.
H+1=I
A+1=B
L+1=MSome speculate that this is intentional.
Arthur C. Clarke insisted that it means Heuristic ALgorithmic - I guess he should know best...
Yea, but those of us who were/are techie IBMrs just *loved* the thought of IBM += HAL.
-- david
Papa.DRB
I retired 12/30/2009 after 35 years, 3 months and 17 days, but who was counting!
Arthur C. Clarke insisted that it means Heuristic ALgorithmic - I guess he should know best...
Sure! The computer antagonist in 2001: A Space Odyssey is named HAL 9000.
H+1=I
A+1=B
L+1=MSome speculate that this is intentional.
Off-Topic: IBM is sending Watson onto Jeopardy in February. :P
|
The Fortune Cards are a fun little dealey you can optionally add to your game if you so desire. They aren't the DEATH OF THE GAME, here, no more then the Official AD&D Wood Burning Set(tm) was to AD&D.Remember "Spellfire" cards? Those weren't the death of the game, but they were the death of TSR. Or at least a contributing factor.Kevin, first i wanted to thank you for previously answering some questions i had concerning alchemists being able to copy spells from wizards, but wizards not being able to copy alchemist formulae.
I just watched a history channel DVD called "Alchemy the science of magic"
On the DVD they interviewed someone by the name of Kevin Andrew Murphy about alchemy which i found very informative. I wonder if the person interviewed was you.
Thanks
Myles
Yep, that was me.
I also consulted for that episode and a number of my books were used for their shots of the various historic alchemy pictures.
(I'm also in the Ancient Mysteries of the Arabian Nights from the same series.)
Heh. We have an actual Television Personality™ in our midst. How cool is that?
|
The one thing WOTC has going for them is that they could just shelf dungeons and dragons and still have magic to keep them going. This means that unlike TSR who basically had to sell the license, WOTC could just stop producing anything under it and make it disappear. This is not a good thing for the game.
Agreed and seoconeded. Unlike TSR Wotc does have other sources of income. In the end worst case scenario if Wotc decides to drop the license it's not a good thing for anyone beyond the contunation of the D&D license. Since one presumes that whomever were to buy the IP would be releasing yet another edition of the game.
QUOTE="ProfessorCirno"]
Dude, you hate 4e. And that's cool, whatever, you don't like the game. But that doesn't make it as bad as the often named "T$R." Get back to me when WotC's CEO starts to basically attempt money laundering through ownership of a different IP and then the company begins to sue it's own fansites.
Seconded again. Add to that a CEO who at the time considered gamers a lesser form of life. Wotc are not saints yet before you try to made them out like TSR do your research first.
|
|
That should be one of the rules.You spoke her name. No good can come of this.TSR was independent, but it had Lorraine Williams. Kinda cancels each other out ;-)Just a point of clarification TSR didn't sell the license, WotC bought the whole company.TSR had to sell the license because the company imploded due to a wide variety of reasons which I won't bring up here. and was essentially going down for the third time. WOTC on the other hand is in far better shape, and actually not doing that badly when you consider that we're still in the Great Recession.
The one thing WOTC has going for them is that they could just shelf dungeons and dragons and still have magic to keep them going. This means that unlike TSR who basically had to sell the license, WOTC could just stop producing anything under it and make it disappear. This is not a good thing for the game.Another point of clarification. WotC isn't an independent company. It's a subsidiary of a large corporation that bought THEM and isn't going to go all "TSR" any time soon. WotC isn't in charge of its own destiny or finances, really. They're a small cog, not the whole enchilada.
Completely different from the TSR situation in that respect.
Autoreplace, Lorraine Williams = She-who-must-not-be-named.
I like it. :D
I wish everyone would use "Hasbro" instead of "WotC" when referencing business decisions. WotC isn't making any decisions about licenses or anything like that. The parent company is.
...but what about the Illuminati who secretly run Hasbro
/tinhat
Things we can take from this:
1) Never work for Mr Potato-Head. Plastic .... things .... don't make good business calls. Now, if only they had been taken over by the people who make die-cast Transformers instead ....
2) Innovation and fun as keystones in the Business Plan and talking to your customers, like our peeps at Pathfinder do, has a wonderful effect of letting the customers know they're not just valued, but listened to, which in turn generates repeat business, which any company needs, as the 'sell and forget' tactic will only work so long as you are A) part of a hideously small market and/or B)you have an exponential number of new customers who have no way of contacting your previous customers for word of mouth.
3) Being humble. Pazio peeps have not once given myself or any of my gaming group the 'sell and forget' tactic, either with their product or customer service, which is something dear olde WotC resorted to during the final years before that mutant abomination of a table-top clawed it's way out of their orifices. If there is a problem, Pazio Peeps work hard to help, and in turn most of their 'customers' (that's us, the Gamers) in turn go to some fairly extreme lengths to help in turn, because we are made to feel as part of the experience, not like we're waiting in line at Wal-Mart, sandwhiched between the 600 Pound Trap Gorilla and the Ogre pushing a wagon loaded with her screaming, mutant babies engaging in an orgy of cannibalism while the Kender in front argues with the Teller about how that bottle of lube wound up in his pocket, which is about as close as I can get to describing my dealings with 4e and the company(ies) behind it without resorting to profanities and/or song-and-dance routines.
*reads what he's posted* I REALLY should not be trying to make sense and/or jokes and/or poking the malformed body of WotC this late at night... sorry all!
I wish everyone would use "Hasbro" instead of "WotC" when referencing business decisions. WotC isn't making any decisions about licenses or anything like that. The parent company is.
The trouble is, we don't know how much WotC decides compared to Hasbro. At least when WotC was independent, you knew WotC was to blame. Now, is it Hasbro, WotC, a Hasbro-picked WotC executive who's acting as Hasbro wants, a Hasbro-picked WotC executive who's gone native but still thinks the decisions are good ideas.
At the end of the day it really doesnt matter where WOTC/HASBRO is in comparison to PAIZO.
Paizo is on the rise regardless, and although it may not beat WOTC/HASBRO by sheer sales numbers alone it can beat them on consistency.
The difference is in customer loyalty. Paizo continues to listen to its fan base and makes decisions taking feedback into consideration.
The playtest session are the most obvious example of this. The other is the constant interaction on the messageboards from Paizo's CEO down to the VERY IMPORTANT postal clerk in the company. You couldnt get customer service like this from most fortune 500 companies.
This is perhaps what sets PAIZO most apart from WOTC/HASBRO. A friendly, concerned, and helpful company that is always looking to assist its customer base.
Paizo needs to continue to keep its product line to a level that is financially manageable for its players. And all I see is a bright future ahead.
And the Wingdings font predicted 9/11. Any other meaningless gibberish you want to spout?Do you realize that a very easy typo is "$E" ?
Dude, you hate 4e. And that's cool, whatever, you don't like the game. But that doesn't make it as bad as the often named "T$R."Sure! The computer antagonist in 2001: A Space Odyssey is named HAL 9000.
H+1=I
A+1=B
L+1=MSome speculate that this is intentional.
It was. Watched a documentary about the movie a long time ago & it was meant to be an inside joke.
|
...
But above all that is the fact that their coffee shop, Seattle's Best, is twice as good as most and five times as good as Starbucks.
Which is odd, seeing how they're a subsidiary of Starbucks.
==AKA 8one6
When have you ever seen a company let go of one revenue stream just because a newer one was ALSO making a profit?<puts cynic hat on>
Of course, this could also be due to WotC basically abandoning the print market since they are laughing all the way to the DDI bank.
Just sayin...
THANK YOU for that moment of logic. It's so frequently lacking in WotC discussions.
Actually, it's not at all illogical to think that a company would abandon a profitable line. It's a matter of just how profitable said product line is.
It's a pretty common business practice in today's economy to drop less-profitable lines for more-profitable (or potentially more-profitable) lines.
If a line isn't as profitable as someone thinks it should be, the resources for that line and be retasked to something more profitable.
I'm not an MBA, so the concept of dumping profitable lines (no matter how little profit they generate, assuming profit means "money made after all costs are payed") seems antithetical to the whole making money business thing. I'm sure there are a ton of books that can explain it to me, and I'm sure they make a good case for it, with pretty pictures and charts.
It's just a question of money expended vs money earned.
If you spend a million and earn $1.1 million, that's a 10% return on your investment.
If you take that million and spend it on promoting Monopoly, and earn $1.5 million, that's a 50% return.
common sense says abandon line 1 and put the money into line2. Both make money, but one makes MORE money. Line1 also is much closer to the no-profit level, so it has to watch its costs much more closely...line2 has room to play, an inbuilt cushion against poor sales to pay fixed costs.
==Aelryinth
The Fortune Cards are a fun little dealey you can optionally add to your game if you so desire. They aren't the DEATH OF THE GAME, here, no more then the Official AD&D Wood Burning Set(tm) was to AD&D.
It's kinda misleading to claim that these cards are only optional, considering the press release's own statement that they will be required in certain organized play situations.
Optional in a home game? Sure, unless the DM allows it/requires it.
Optional in store play/organized play? Sure, unless it's required by the store or play association.
"Optional" is an inaccurate description of these new cards.
|
|
The trouble is, we don't know how much WotC decides compared to Hasbro. At least when WotC was independent, you knew WotC was to blame. Now, is it Hasbro, WotC, a Hasbro-picked WotC executive who's acting as Hasbro wants, a Hasbro-picked WotC executive who's gone native but still thinks the decisions are good ideas.I wish everyone would use "Hasbro" instead of "WotC" when referencing business decisions. WotC isn't making any decisions about licenses or anything like that. The parent company is.
I know WotC isn't selling the D&D property without Hasbro's say so. Or licensing it out.
As far as the creative side goes, I'm sure Hasbro doesn't give a whiff about D&D.
It's just a question of money expended vs money earned.
If you spend a million and earn $1.1 million, that's a 10% return on your investment.
If you take that million and spend it on promoting Monopoly, and earn $1.5 million, that's a 50% return.
common sense says abandon line 1 and put the money into line2. Both make money, but one makes MORE money. Line1 also is much closer to the no-profit level, so it has to watch its costs much more closely...line2 has room to play, an inbuilt cushion against poor sales to pay fixed costs.
==Aelryinth
Oh, I understand the mentality behind it, and I'm not necessarily saying it's "wrong", but (and I could be wrong here), I seem to remember in the "old" economy, those less-profitable lines were allowed to remain, because they still pulled a profit.
I don't have examples to back anything up (which is why I'm not taking a strong position either way), but I seem to recall that "in the old days", a company would expand, and put money into line 1 and line 2, and profit from both (albeit disparately), rather than toss line 1 aside.
|
|
WOTC may be owned by Hasbro, but it's still a separate division and people there do make their own calls.I wish everyone would use "Hasbro" instead of "WotC" when referencing business decisions. WotC isn't making any decisions about licenses or anything like that. The parent company is.
Uh-huh. Again, I don't doubt Wotc has some autonomy on the creative side (more or less), but I highly doubt they're making any licensing decisions at that level.
Sadly what Brain E. Harris said is true.
It is a shame to. As money is money. Usually when you abandon a less profitable line (that still making you money), you let people go. The line then generates no money. The people you let go then have to go out and generate more revenue for themselves. This means working for a competitor company or starting there own business.
What is worse is the fact that when you redirect that extra revenues to the profitable line, there is no guarantee that the money now pumped into that line, will greatly increase its return.
What i call the GREED factor. Short term Gain for long term loss.
|
|
...
But above all that is the fact that their coffee shop, Seattle's Best, is twice as good as most and five times as good as Starbucks.Which is odd, seeing how they're a subsidiary of Starbucks.
==
AKA 8one6
And, to be honest, five times better than "sucks really badly" still sucks.
/barista rant
What i call the GREED factor. Short term Gain for long term loss.
I don't know that I'd call it greed, but more, too much big-picture views (from a large corporate standpoint) instead of the ground-level view.
Maybe it's why I'm not in business and not a rich man, but were I a business owner with my own product lines, I'd rather have a few/many smaller, steady, carefully shepherded product lines than one or two big gigantic product lines.
|
|
And, to be honest, five times better than "sucks really badly" still sucks./barista rant
I wouldn't say "sucks." I like their Iced Chai.
==AKA 8one6
What happens if WotC decides they do not like the competition, and decides not to renew the license to Paizo?The OGL is forever. WotC can't revoke it.
Which is what WotC legal hated so much and made such a muck of the GSL. Which ironically help contribute to Pathfinder. I believe there is quote that covers, something about star systems and fingers.
|
|
And, to be honest, five times better than "sucks really badly" still sucks./barista rant
I wouldn't say "sucks." I like their Iced Chai.
==
AKA 8one6
Chai is just tea concentrate in a carton, hard to mess up mixing that with milk or soy.
I'm talking coffee, man!
And, seriously, I've worked places that hired "baritas" with Seatle's Best/Starbucks experience that knew squat about how fine a grind should be, how to properly set the coffee in the head, how long a shot should take to pull, how to properly steam/foam milk, etc.
And the coffee they use is over-roasted crap (coffee isn't supposed to taste burnt).
You know a big reason McDonald's is eating into Starbucks' market share? A few years ago, Starbucks closed every store in their chain for a whole day so they could retrain every single employee they had in the art of making espresso drinks. They were that bad, chain-wide. And they still have no clue how to do it right.
McDonald's took advantage (since this happened just as they were about to roll out their coffee drink line) and decided to give away free coffee that day. They even referenced Starbucks when they announced it, something like "You can't get your latte today? Well, try ours for free!"
I do like Starbucks for one reason, though: every time I've made a drink for someone who is a regular at Starbucks, they've invariably told me I made the best [whatever] they ever had.
Starbucks coffee sucks.
I hear they're a good company to work for thought, so I'll give them that (good benes, even for part time folk - stuff like that).
The Fortune Cards are a fun little dealey you can optionally add to your game if you so desire. They aren't the DEATH OF THE GAME, here, no more then the Official AD&D Wood Burning Set(tm) was to AD&D.It's kinda misleading to claim that these cards are only optional, considering the press release's own statement that they will be required in certain organized play situations.
Optional in a home game? Sure, unless the DM allows it/requires it.
Optional in store play/organized play? Sure, unless it's required by the store or play association.
"Optional" is an inaccurate description of these new cards.
"Hey we have this new style of organized play that uses cards"
"Ok I'll not play that, I'll do your other organized play instead"
MANDATORY
Alternately:
WotC: Oh hey now you give more money to the FLGS when you go in for an organized game rather then paying zero dollars
Consumer: NOOOOOOOOOOO!
-- Being a sarcastic ass....
OOh Ooh!, Can I h@z p0w3rz dr@ftz!? I w@ntz 0v3r 9000 pwn@g3 d@1ly!!!!
"Hey we have this new style of organized play that uses cards"
"Ok I'll not play that, I'll do your other organized play instead"
MANDATORY
Alternately:
WotC: Oh hey now you give more money to the FLGS when you go in for an organized game rather then paying zero dollars
Consumer: NOOOOOOOOOOO!
More like this:
FLGS CLERK: Okay, to play in this D&D game, you have to buy this pack of cards.
CUSTOMER: I just bought a $20 box of dungeon tiles.
FLGS CLERK: Well, to play the new D&D game, you need to buy these cards too.
CUSTOMER: What? Is this D&D or a sealed Magic booster tournament?
FLGS CLERK: It's D&D.
DM: Am I allowed to Rule 0 any of the cards if they break the plot?
FLGS CLERK: I don't know. Let me go consult the Palantir. I mean the DDI....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What happens if WotC decides they do not like the competition, and decides not to renew the license to Paizo?
The Open Game License is explicitly perpetual. Hasbro can't refuse to renew, since it never runs out.