Where did this idea that Hasbro can't court controversy come from?

[FNGRpony 658]

Sit down kids uncle no good has to eexplain why this is is a big pile of milarky.

 

Long ago in DND second edition when that bad boy was run by tsr the game system took out demons and devils and gave them goofy names cause they wanted to work around contraversy.

 

Wizards bought dnd and guess what got back in?  ^^ take a lucky guess.  Oh and lets not forget they bought dnd,

that's not exactly a timid move in it's own right.

 

Now MTG a while back took out demons,

Under wotc watchful eye,

they got back in ^^.

 

hell they went into over drive in some sets to make more than they ever did in the past.

 

And kamigawa sucked.

 hasbro just tossed them in there so people would notice less.  
It worked.

 

 

"ZOMG demons"

"but dude bushido is a terrible card mechanic."  "Dude we got demons back!"

 

 

I bring this up for everyone who says 
Hasbro (you know the same people who own gi joe) 

won't ever put something out controversial 

(they gave michael bay the right to muck up transformers).

 

Don't you beleive it.

Sincerly, for no Good reason ^^.

Edited December 5, 2013 by FNGRpony

[hawkflame 3,310]

1) Define "controversial" in this context.  There's a big difference between what happened with Derpy and, say, killing off the entiere cast of MLP.  Both are controversial, but in totally different degrees. 

 

2) How does what other companies have done have any relation whatsoever to Hasbro?  It's a bogus comparison.

[Frith is Magick 1,471]

Companies in general prefer to avoid controversy or anything else that may reduce revenue. Before there were bronies, Hasbro sold not to children, but to parents. Because in this day in age parents seem to want to keep their children safe from the mental and sever emotional strain of critical thinking, Hasbro had to cater to the idiocy of politically correct parents. Now that the brony population has grown and makes up a larger percentage of their revenue stream, Hasbro can now venture into previously forbidden territory. This does not mean, however, that Hasbro would wish to court controversy, it just means that they are avoiding a different set of potential issues. It all boils down to maximizing sales by kissing a target demographic's butt.

[FNGRpony 658]

1) Define "controversial" in this context.  There's a big difference between what happened with Derpy and, say, killing off the entiere cast of MLP.  Both are controversial, but in totally different degrees. 

 

2) How does what other companies have done have any relation whatsoever to Hasbro?  It's a bogus comparison.

Hasbro owns

wizards of the coast.

[hawkflame 3,310]

Hasbro owns

wizards of the coast.

 

Okay... so then what's your point?  Sometimes your posts aren't the easiest to follow.

 

Are you saying that Hasbro doesn't mind controversey?  Because there's different degreesof controversey, and different product lines with different target audiences that you really can't compare. How they handle one product may not have anything to do with how they handle another.

[Malinter 3,064]

I think people (mostly bronies) have that impression of Hasbro due to how fast they folded over the whole Derpy fiasco.