Maybe they realized it was bad karma and shifted the lay-offs until earlier in the year. Or maybe, since they already restructured and had lay-offs in 2010, the decided no more were needed at this time. Or they've shrunk to as small as the company can manage without cutting managerial positions. Time will tell.
I noticed this and was also impressed.
Maybe they realized it was bad karma and shifted the lay-offs until earlier in the year. Or maybe, since they already restructured and had lay-offs in 2010, the decided no more were needed at this time. Or they've shrunk to as small as the company can manage without cutting managerial positions. Time will tell.
Or they just didn't announce any lay-offs...
Or DDi is making enough money to keep them afloat (44512 * $7/month = $311,584/month)...
I noticed this and was also impressed.
Maybe they realized it was bad karma and shifted the lay-offs until earlier in the year. Or maybe, since they already restructured and had lay-offs in 2010, the decided no more were needed at this time. Or they've shrunk to as small as the company can manage without cutting managerial positions. Time will tell.
Or they just didn't announce any lay-offs...
Or DDi is making enough money to keep them afloat (44512 * $7/month = $311,584/month)...
Well, with D&Di being required to use the character builder (instead of subscribe once a year for one month, or just torrent; both forms of theft are impossible now), Wizards has both a more stable income (Alright! Profits are down... $100,000 this month! That's quite a jump!) and is better able to make the argument that their profit margins are going to expand over the coming year.
Basically, this Silverlight app thing means that if anyone looks at Wizards and goes "Hm... can we make more money by firing these people?" the answer is "No" which is a rather good defense against layoffs =P
Too bad. I wish they had fired the people behind Essentials and DDI fiascos. They broke rule number #1: If it ain't broken, don't try to fix it.
The only problem with this concept is they fired the guy who brought us 4.0 to begin with to bring on a guy who hated the concept from the start...
Exactly... Essentials should have been a side project or nothing at all. The excuse for being easier to learn for new players is completely wrong as can be seen by the new players posts on the forums. A template character that chose all powers and options would have been 10x easier, but instead they gotta change everything up...
Too bad. I wish they had fired the people behind Essentials and DDI fiascos. They broke rule number #1: If it ain't broken, don't try to fix it.
The only problem with this concept is they fired the guy who brought us 4.0 to begin with to bring on a guy who hated the concept from the start...
Who are these guys? I need names.
Too bad. I wish they had fired the people behind Essentials and DDI fiascos. They broke rule number #1: If it ain't broken, don't try to fix it.
The only problem with this concept is they fired the guy who brought us 4.0 to begin with to bring on a guy who hated the concept from the start...
Who are these guys? I need names.
Well, IIRC (If I Recall Correctly) Rob Heinsoo is gone, and current Design Lead Mike Mearls went on record years ago that he hated 4E's design (he thought it went too far from previous editions).
(To which I must ask, "Then why aren't you working for Paizo and writing/designing for Pathfinder?")
Here's a list of the credits, first the 4E Players Handbook (1), then the Red Box Essentials credits.
PHB (1)
D&D 4th Edition Design Team -
Rob Heinsoo, Andy Collins, James Wyatt
D&D 4th Edition Final Development Strike Team -
Bill Slavicsek, Mike Mearls, James Wyatt
Player’s Handbook Design -
Rob Heinsoo, Andy Collins, James Wyatt
Red Box Essentials
Design -
James Wyatt (Lead), Jeremy Crawford, Mike Mearls,
Bill Slavicsek, and Rodney Thompson
Additional Design -
Logan Bonner and Matthew Sernett
Development -
Andy Collins (lead) Stephen Schubert
Too bad. I wish they had fired the people behind Essentials and DDI fiascos. They broke rule number #1: If it ain't broken, don't try to fix it.
The only problem with this concept is they fired the guy who brought us 4.0 to begin with to bring on a guy who hated the concept from the start...
Who are these guys? I need names.
Well, IIRC (If I Recall Correctly) Rob Heinsoo is gone, and current Design Lead Mike Mearls went on record years ago that he hated 4E's design (he thought it went too far from previous editions).
(To which I must ask, "Then why aren't you working for Paizo and writing/designing for Pathfinder?")
Here's a list of the credits, first the 4E Players Handbook (1), then the Red Box Essentials credits.
PHB (1)
D&D 4th Edition Design Team -
Rob Heinsoo, Andy Collins, James Wyatt
D&D 4th Edition Final Development Strike Team -
Bill Slavicsek, Mike Mearls, James Wyatt
Player’s Handbook Design -
Rob Heinsoo, Andy Collins, James Wyatt
Red Box Essentials
Design -
James Wyatt (Lead), Jeremy Crawford, Mike Mearls,
Bill Slavicsek, and Rodney Thompson
Additional Design -
Logan Bonner and Matthew Sernett
Development -
Andy Collins (lead) Stephen Schubert
Weren't Heinsoo and Collins fired? And Mearls was promoted. Seems that someone in the higher echelons also thought that 4e went too far. As for me, I think that 4e did well to go far from 3.5 mechanics; that system was too clunky to live. As long as there are iconic D&D monsters, spells, etc. in the game, it is D&D for me. The system per se does not make it D&D, so it should discard all unnecessary ballast from earlier editions. Essentials is a step backwards in that sense, and overall a disappointment. I wish they had kept their promise of 10 essentials products and then back to providing material for us classic 4e fans.
On the bright side (unless I missed an announcement), it appears Wizards has avoided the pre-Christmas layoffs that marred 2008 and 2009. Here's hoping 2011 continues the trend!
Yeah, instead they seem to be not putting any product out in 2011 instead.
current Design Lead Mike Mearls went on record years ago that he hated 4E's design
I call shenanigans. Please provide a direct and reliably-sourced quote to support your rather extraordinary claim. There is no way in hell Mearls would get away with publically stating he "hated 4e's design" and still be working for WotC.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I will assume you are grossly misremembering what he actually said (which was more likely something like "some people think 4e's design strayed too far from what they think of as D&D").
You missed the Well, IIRC (If I Recall Correctly)
part of the post.
Please re-read.
You missed the Well, IIRC (If I Recall Correctly)
part of the post.
My bad. For some reason, I read that as applying just to the bit about Heinsoo, not the whole sentence.
The point remains, however, that you're probably not remembering correctly what Mearls said.
He clearly does not hate 4e. However, he acknowleged some of the criticism that former D&D players had lodged. Some of his comments are these:
- "We're always open to change, to reacting to what people say"
- "If you look back at the launch of 4th Edition, the game was really aimed at existing D&D players. The idea is really just to cut down the time between 'Hey, I bought this game' and 'I'm playing it.'"
- "I really think it's important to have the core of D&D as the foundation that people walk into. That's why in the new Red Box there's Elves, Dwarves, and Halflings. It's the classic classes and the classic races."
Mearls does cirticize the narrativist philosophy of pre-E 4e: "I almost think narrative games are a different hobby, where it really is group world building or literal group storytelling. In a more traditional roleplaying game like D&D, you build it as you go and it's almost like a game of football or some sport where the action arises as you go".
Now, nothing in this interview (or any other) indicates a hatred of 4e. From this interview I get two very specific criticisms:
- By introducing unusual races and classes in the first book -- dragonborn, tieflings, warlords -- and ignoring traditional classses and races -- gnomes, bards, druids -- it alienated old players and confused players entering the game expecting traditional fantasy tropes.
- Asking people to be as narrativist as 4e suggests, with widespread reflavoring, and with powers that ask people to justify a three square slide with a martial strike -- can be daunting and off-putting for new and inexperienced players.
- Powers were difficult to distinguish. All the shifts and slides and pushes and pulls may play well in practice, but were almost impossible to analyze from a casual reading. Again, this is offputting to newcomers, and even to some grognards (thus the common criticism "All the classes seem the same").
It's actually Escapist Magazine that is concluding from this interview that Mearls is lodging some hefty criticisms at Heinsoo's 4e, but the quotes don't really back that up. In fact, in this clarification, the writer of the article acknowledges that he has some definite prejudices about 4e, and that he lets them out in his writing.
He then follows with the full transcript of the interview. Again, Mearls never indicates ahatred of 4e, only a concern that 4e is not as accessibe to new players as he thinks appropriate. Some more Mearls quotes:
- "You can do the weirder stuff, but I think you need to do that for the experienced players, especially for beginning players, or players who just like that core D&D. "
- "it's really important to have that different feel because otherwise, especially for beginners, it's easy to lose track of "well, you're giving me all these choices, but what's really different?" If you want to sell me on this, and say what's interesting about this class and why should I pick it, you need those very visceral, big differences."
- "if you look the 4th Edition handbook and you look at those players - you have to be well versed in D&D to understand the difference between the classes. It's the old - I see this comment a lot online - "It doesn't read very well, but it plays very well.""
- what we were looking for in Essentials, especially for beginners, because there's plenty of people out there who have stopped playing D&D - you want them to go "This reads well too," because you're dealing with an audience that isn't already playing your game
- I think you can see narrative games spring up more in what I think of as high-end users, people who have been playing for awhile or have really thought a lot about gaming
- what you'll get with the Essentials books; it'll basically tell you on the cover, here are the character classes you're getting. It's just a more flavorful title. Something more interesting than Player's Handbook 4.
- With 4th Edition, there were good intentions. The game is very solid, there are a lot of people who play it and enjoy it, but you do get those people that say "hey, this feels like an MMO, this feels like a board game."
I don't see him hating on 4e. The closest he comes to that is the following:
- We are D&D fans. We want D&D to be the best roleplaying game it can be. We're always open to change, to reacting to what people say. The past is in the past, there's nothing we can say or do. If you are a disgruntled D&D fan, there's nothing I can say to you that undoes whatever happened 2 years ago or a year ago that made you disgruntled - but what I can do, what's within my power is going forward, I can make products, I can design game material, I can listen to what you're saying, and I can do what I can do with design to make you happy again. To get back to that core of what makes D&D D&D, what made people fall in love with it the first time, whether it was the Red Box in 83, the original three booklets back in 74 or 75 or even 3rd edition in 2004. Whenever that happened, to get back to what drew you into D&D in the first place and give that back to you.
But he's soliciting disgruntled fans to come back. He's trying to integratr what the disgruntled think has been lost with what already makes 4e a "solid game".
I don't think Mearls hates 4e. I think he has a tough job of keepign the 4e fan base and recruiting as many new players, whether they be first-timers or disgruntled players returning, to the game.
(See? I CAN admit when I'm wrong, rare as it is!)
Nonetheless, Mearls' actions since then did seem to back up my error....
Mearls' actions since then did seem to back up my error....
huh? When Mearls gave this interview, anything that has been presently released for Essentials would already have been sent to the printer. What he said in his interview reflects his mindset when the current Essentials stuff was written.
If anything has changed since then, it would have been in reaction to whatever data they learned from the releases of Essentials in the first place.
Mearls' actions since then did seem to back up my error....
huh? When Mearls gave this interview, anything that has been presently released for Essentials would already have been sent to the printer. What he said in his interview reflects his mindset when the current Essentials stuff was written.
If anything has changed since then, it would have been in reaction to whatever data they learned from the releases of Essentials in the first place.
That's debatable, especially since most of the public statements since then have amounted to "we rock", i.e. his statement that the Essentials design paradigm was the way they were going to go from now on.
They also said they were switching to an online Character Builder to "combat piracy", but we have no proof that that is why they did that, either. No figures, no facts, just hyperbole.
In either case, I'll believe it when they actually show some real-world figures to go with their statements, otherwise it's just "Saddam has WMD's, HONEST!!!"
Mearls' actions since then did seem to back up my error....
huh? When Mearls gave this interview, anything that has been presently released for Essentials would already have been sent to the printer. What he said in his interview reflects his mindset when the current Essentials stuff was written.
If anything has changed since then, it would have been in reaction to whatever data they learned from the releases of Essentials in the first place.
That's debatable, especially since most of the public statements since then have amounted to "we rock", i.e. his statement that the Essentials design paradigm was the way they were going to go from now on.
Nothing you wrote debates the idea that when Mearls gave his interview Essentials would already have been to the printer...
It appears that you just quoted me and then wrote a screed about what a horrible betrayal Essentials has been to everything that came before. Every so often I think... here's a guy who seems reasonable and is willing to question his assumptions if given the correct facts, and invariably I am disappointed.
Have fun tilting at your windmills. Sorry I bothered.
And if someone actually provides FACTS, I might just change my mind (or not, there's the whole lack of sanity thing, but I digress), however, no-one has supplied any actual hard facts.
No data.
Nuthin'.
You COULD be right, I fully admit that.
However, there hasn't been anything other than WotC's word one way or another, and that's not evidence (in either direction.)
I'm not saying they're lying, I'm saying that one's word is not verifiable fact without recourse to outside evidence that verifies what is being claimed.
And exactly how did I wrote a screed about what a horrible betrayal Essentials has been to everything that came before.
???
All I did was point out that until some actual sales figures or other data are produced, it's just thier word against what many suspect and/or fear.
Don't get me wrong, I COULD do that if you want me to (Chaotic Neutral is flexible that way, and I have been told I have a talent for Hunter S. Thompson-esque paranoid rants) but I think you read more into my reply than I actually typed.
I'm confused, we seem to be talking past one another???
Not sure if you received my last PM or the post in the thread.
May I use an analogy, since I cannot seem to make myself clear?
Lets look at recent WotC actions through the eyes of, say, Robocop (the first film, not the character).
In the film we had two conflicting products coming out from OmniConsumer Products, the ED-209 Urban Pacification Drone, and the Robocop cyborg program. The guy in charge of the ED-209 project, Dick Jones, wants his product ED-209/Essentials to succeed. In order to do that, the previously enacted "product" must go to the wayside.
Does Dick Jones hate Robocop/Alex Murphy? No.
(Well, unless its during those last two minutes in the film where Murphy blows him out the OCP office window.)
No, it's just business.
The difference between Robocop and 4E/Essentials is that in the case of the movie, we have behind-the-scenes actual information on why the players are acting as they do. Dick Jones wants ED-209 to become the next big thing, junior executive Bob Morton wants to be recognized by the boss, and Murphy wants his life and memories back.
WotC on the other hand is layered away from observation by non-communication and NDA's all over the place.
THAT is the debatable part, not whether Mearls "hates 4E".
Because between all of WotC's action this past year (Heinsoo's firing, the DDI fiasco, SOON, and "the Essentials Paradigm is the way forward from now on") NONE of it makes any sense!
1) Could it be because Mearls "hates 4E"? Okay, I admit this is extremely unlikely (see previous posts), but its one possible reason. Not a likely reason, unless Mearls sits in his office wearing black hats, capes and a glued-on waxed mustache to twirl, but within the realm of possibility. [EDIT] oh, and eating babies and kittens; if we're going to villanize him, go all the way.
2) Could it be because of data they've gotten since printing, as you posit? Other than the dismayed rants on the boards, what hard data could they have gotten in this amount of time? Whatever they've gotten, they're certainly not sharing with us, that's for sure, so I find it equally unlikely (but that's just me).
3) Could it be Mearls wanting to "Leave his mark on D&D" now that he's in charge? Possible, and this one is just as likely or unlikely as any of the other possibilities.
4) Or could this simply be a case of ED-209: "I want my product to be THE next big thing because I'm that d*** proud of it"?
Unfortunately, until they release the behind-the-scenes editors cut of WotC: the Movie, we won't know, because there's more fog and obfuscation than a mid-60's Hammer horror film. Hence, debate.
On the bright side (unless I missed an announcement), it appears Wizards has avoided the pre-Christmas layoffs that marred 2008 and 2009. Here's hoping 2011 continues the trend!
Sadly, it appars the layoffs were merely delayed for six months. Best of luck to Michelle Carter (1992-2011), Bill Slavicsek (1993-2011), and Stephen Schubert (2004-2011)
Sadly, it appars the layoffs were merely delayed for six months.
Bill's column leaves "layoff" in doubt, although the addition of Michell and Stephen lends credence to it.
When a high-ranking individual (e.g., Bill) heads out the door, it is not at all uncommon to see a few others get invited to accompany the departing person, not by the company, but by the departing individual! If Bill has another plan, it may be that he has invited Michelle and Stephen to join him.
Do you have source information to indicate Michelle and Stephen were layoffs and not, perhaps, a group departure for a different pasture?
But that might be because I dated two Michelle* Carter's in college (at the same time for about a month, by the way, which made taking messages from my roommates a bit difficult at times!)
*One had only one L in Michelle, the other had two.
But that might be because I dated two Michelle* Carter's in college (at the same time for about a month, by the way, which made taking messages from my roommates a bit difficult at times!)
This sounds like a really good basis for a sitcom. Or at least a long-running story arc in a sitcom. I can even see running two quite similar-looking actresses for a few episodes, to fake out the audience into thinking it's meant to be the same character (maybe even run some fake stories in the press about how the original actress left the show and was replaced part-way through filming), and only revealing at the climax to the first season finale that there are in fact two 'Michelle's when they both walk into the room at the same time.
PS: You absolute cad!
;)