Rs

This topic has expert replies
User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 7:16 pm
Location: Newark, DE

Rs

by govind_raj_76 » Wed Aug 25, 2010 9:00 pm
According to the passage, the struggles of Wizards of the coast is seen as,


Like any industry, the gaming industry has seen several cycles of expansion and consolidation. In many cases, trends and developments have enabled cagey and successful newcomers to absorb staid stalwarts who lost the edge. But over-expansion and an inability to maintain flexibility have turned the tables on more than one aggressive upstart.

Such was the case with Wizards of the Coast, following a breakout emergence in 1993. Known traditionally as a struggling outfit of gamers with more passion than business experience, Wizards of the Coast in 1993 published the now legendary title Magic: The Gathering and in the process rewrote the book on gaming. Combining the popularity of trading cards with a combative pseudo-role-playing game system, Magic spawned the collectible trading card game genre and was a whirlwind success. Sweeping through the related communities of gaming, collectibles, and fandom, the game sold in unprecedented numbers. The drive to win required players to amass decks containing the most powerful and rare of cards. The card-hoarding mentality drove frenzied sales whenever the rumor of a new card's release spread across the budding Internet communities.

The trading card business flourished as many in the target market found themselves moving into professional careers with dramatically increased disposable income. Flush with cash, Wizards of the Coast sought acquisitions and in 1997 acquired TSR, the famed owner of Dungeons and Dragons. This classic game was not only responsible for the rise of the modern social gaming
market but was still the genre's most popular title. Spread thin and across many product lines, TSR had been a victim of its own
success, unwilling to return to core product lines after diversifying into novels, video games, and even Saturday morning cartoons. TSR came at a discount and the management of Wizards immediately began making tough decisions and culling dead product areas.

Concurrently, Wizards' own expansion continued as a series of retail stores and clubs opened, providing places for players of Magic and other games to gather and play. Elaborate plans were made to re-launch much of the Dungeons and Dragons line in a new series of books and player aids. Finally, in 1999, old-school corporate America arrived in the form of Hasbro, which acquired Wizards at a phenomenal premium. For ownership of a company that was piling success upon success, however, no price seemed too high.

Unfortunately, a number of facts conspired to reverse the meteoric rise and bring about a gradual, painful descent. The seemingly inexhaustible interest in increasingly elaborate trading card games waned, and even the core offerings of Magic and Pokemon lost their excitement. The "dot-com" crash played its role in the decline since much of the fast-climbing IT profession, long a center of gaming and collectibles, found itself on hard times. Traditional role-playing gamers were disturbed by the push to release revised versions of Dungeons and Dragons and balked at several high-profile and high-budget launches. Soon Wizards' retail stores were closing and in 2003 even the massive Seattle flagship store was forced to close. Today, Wizards of the Coast continues as the subsidiary of Hasbro, marketing to the more serious hobbyist gamer rather than to the casual game buyer. Ironically, its major income sources are now the various Dungeons and Dragons titles acquired years ago from then-struggling TSR.

A. Not uncommon among game companies.


B.Significantly more extreme than those faced by other game companies.


C.Effectively identical to those faced by TSR.


D.A sign of the times during the "dot-com" crash.

E.The direct result of inexperienced management.

Please help
Govind

Legendary Member
Posts: 520
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 10:44 am
Thanked: 70 times
Followed by:6 members

by niksworth » Thu Aug 26, 2010 11:48 am
The answers should be A. Please provide the OA.

Explanation:
A) Paragraph 1 clearly states that over-expansion and an inability to maintain flexibility have turned the tables on more than one aggressive upstart. This means that busting of companies like Wizard is a fairly common phenomenon is such industries.
B) The situation of other gaming companies has not been mentioned in the passage.
C) The struggles of TSR and Wizards were different. (Expansion into too many segments for TSR vs market factors for Wizard)
D) "Dot Com" crash played a role in the decline of Wizard but the vice versa relationship i.e. the struggles of Wizard were sign of those times has not been stated anywhere.
E) Again, the experience of management of Wizard has not been given as a reason of their fall.

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 12:10 am

by a_new_beginning » Fri Sep 30, 2016 10:59 am
Can anybody please explain the below question -

According to the information in the passage, at the time of its acquisition by Wizards of the Coast, TSR had been involved with all of the following products EXCEPT:

Saturday morning cartoons
Role-playing games
Collectible trading card games
Works of fiction
Video games

OA - C