# Gleemax = Enworld



## crazy_monkey1956 (Jun 11, 2007)

I don't normally don't take the role of doomsayer, but...

So here I am reading over the press release that details WotC's new Gleemax doohicky and I'm thinking to myself...they're putting themselves into direct competition with Enworld.  All of the features described in the press release, as well as a quick tour of the site seem to make it out to be everything that enworld already is.

The expressed intent within the press release even states that they want to consolidate the online gamer community.

This can't be good for enworld, can it?


----------



## Kaodi (Jun 11, 2007)

I think you underestimate the cohesion of this community. EN World has a lot of history and comraderie, which is something some new-fangled doohickey can't just up and replace.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 11, 2007)

I don't think so - WotC's boards have always been larger than EN World's community.  That has a big impact on their nature and flavor.  There are always going to be folks who don't like that nature and flavor, and they'll come to En World and the other 3rd party sites for some of their contact and interaction.

Hm.  Maybe they'll ask Morrus to be on the "Gleemax Advisory Board".  I am sure he could GAB with the best of them


----------



## Voadam (Jun 11, 2007)

link to the press release?


----------



## Umbran (Jun 11, 2007)

Voadam said:
			
		

> link to the press release?




http://ww2.wizards.com/Company/Press/?doc=20070611


----------



## Goddess FallenAngel (Jun 11, 2007)

There are a lot of gaming messageboards on the internet. Just because a new one pops up doesn't mean that the old ones suddenly die (although I do find it interesting that their stated purpose seems to supercede WOTC's current boards as well... are they discontinuing those?).

Personally, I visit ENworld instead of WOTC's boards, RPGnet and etc. because I know the members, agree with how ENworld is moderated and the rules as posted, etc. I'm not going to leave unless ENworld drastically changes (which I hope doesn't happen).  

That said, yet another Wizard's board couldn't matter any less to me. 

And I'm sure that I'm not alone.


----------



## DaveMage (Jun 11, 2007)

Since Gleemax is still a WotC site, I wouldn't consider it quite the same as EN World.

One more gaming website is unlikely to have much of an impact.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Jun 11, 2007)

Heh.  Stupid name, and yet another doomed attempt to 'get down' with what the kids R doing these days.   They'd be far better off working within the confines of MySpace than trying to create another on-line hangout.  Setting out to create 'cool' generally fails, especially when you're trying to deliberately recreate the spontaneous success someone else had.

ENWorld has nothing to PH3@r.  I mean, fear.


----------



## crazy_monkey1956 (Jun 11, 2007)

Hypothetical what-if scenario.

What if WotC, in a move similar to the CSG patent, attempts to patent the "online gaming community" format?


----------



## RangerWickett (Jun 11, 2007)

crazypixie said:
			
		

> Hypothetical what-if scenario.
> 
> What if WotC, in a move similar to the CSG patent, attempts to patent the "online gaming community" format?




LOL


----------



## Ringan (Jun 11, 2007)

Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> Heh.  Stupid name, and yet another doomed attempt to 'get down' with what the kids R doing these days.   They'd be far better off working within the confines of MySpace than trying to create another on-line hangout.  Setting out to create 'cool' generally fails, especially when you're trying to deliberately recreate the spontaneous success someone else had.
> 
> ENWorld has nothing to PH3@r.  I mean, fear.




Haha, QFT...it sounds like "Kleenex".


----------



## Mercule (Jun 11, 2007)

Ringan said:
			
		

> Haha, QFT...it sounds like "Kleenex".




Actually, it sounds like a stupidly cute name for an orgasm.  Or, maybe that's what the Kleenex is for.

I know ENWorld doesn't have to fear the loss of my business so long as their competitors use such bad names.  Seriously.  How do I approach my gaming group and say, "Hey, I found this cool rules idea on 'Gleemax' today?"  I couldn't do it with a straight face.  Ergo, I won't even bother with the site.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Jun 11, 2007)

The "new competition for us?" question is coming out of RPG.net and Boardgamegeek.com as well.

The reality is that all three websites, ENworld, RPG.Net and Boardgamegeek each have massive user bases and long traditions behind them.

If the focus of Gleemax is upon new customers (as the interviews with WotC spokemen appear to be saying) then the sustomer base here is not their target market. Nor is tht market the RPG,net or BGG user, either. 

I use ENWorld, RPG.net and BGG. If there is a sudden fourth choice of any quality - I'll use it too. But it won't be to the exclusion of the other three sites I already have used for some time.

I doubt the vast majority of users are much different than I am in that regard. *shrug*


----------



## Mark CMG (Jun 11, 2007)

Sounds like a bad Fifties sci-fi drug name from a story where everyone eventually takes Gleemax (_For Maximum Happiness!_) and become mindless automatons serving the greater good of society.  And they were sending out brains, right?  With bar codes?  Where do I sign up again?


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jun 11, 2007)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> Sounds like a bad Fifties sci-fi drug name from a story where everyone eventually takes Gleemax (_For Maximum Happiness!_) and become mindless automatons serving the greater good of society.  And they were sending out brains, right?  With bar codes?  Where do I sign up again?





Quick, somebody get Fred Pohl on this, pronto.  Or get an Oujia board and get Robert Heinlein on it.

"Suggested Reading:

*STONED SPACE-WANDERERS* by *ROBERT A. HEINLEIN*
*THE GLEEMAX CONSORTIUM* by *FREDERICK POHL*"


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Jun 11, 2007)

Here is a long interview with Wizards of the Coast Vice President of Digital Games Randy Buehler on ICv2 about Gleemax.

http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/10687.html


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Jun 11, 2007)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> Sounds like a bad Fifties sci-fi drug name from a story where everyone eventually takes Gleemax (_For Maximum Happiness!_) and become mindless automatons serving the greater good of society.  And they were sending out brains, right?  With bar codes?  Where do I sign up again?




Thanks. Now all I can picture in my head is that freak from the 'natural male enhancement' ads pimping 'Gleemax'.


----------



## Slife (Jun 11, 2007)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> Sounds like a bad Fifties sci-fi drug name from a story where everyone eventually takes Gleemax (_For Maximum Happiness!_) and become mindless automatons serving the greater good of society.  And they were sending out brains, right?  With bar codes?  Where do I sign up again?



Friend computer hasn't cleared you for that information.


----------



## Erywin (Jun 11, 2007)

Vive la ENWORLD!!!


----------



## Ringan (Jun 11, 2007)

Mercule said:
			
		

> Actually, it sounds like a stupidly cute name for an orgasm.  Or, maybe that's what the Kleenex is for.
> 
> I know ENWorld doesn't have to fear the loss of my business so long as their competitors use such bad names.  Seriously.  How do I approach my gaming group and say, "Hey, I found this cool rules idea on 'Gleemax' today?"  I couldn't do it with a straight face.  Ergo, I won't even bother with the site.




Agreed...Gleemax does sound a bit too much like a "happy ending".


----------



## Jupp (Jun 11, 2007)

Gleemax - When your floor needs more than just soap - Gleemax !

Really, who did come up with that kind of name  :\ 

 I am all for new gaming message boards, but the person that did come up with that name should be forced to eat the paper he wrote the name on....


----------



## Umbran (Jun 11, 2007)

crazypixie said:
			
		

> What if WotC, in a move similar to the CSG patent, attempts to patent the "online gaming community" format?




Certainly, any online gaming community that has existed for years before the date of the patent grant has nothing to worry about.  

Now, if the patent hinged upon functionality we don't currently offer, that's a different issue.  We could be restricted from adding new features that are covered by the patent.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jun 11, 2007)

crazypixie said:
			
		

> Hypothetical what-if scenario.
> 
> What if WotC, in a move similar to the CSG patent, attempts to patent the "online gaming community" format?





"This is just WotCs way of protecting our IP, and quite frankly, ensuring we hit our desired demographic!  We're working _with_ gamers, because that's what we like to do.  Don't think for a minute the fact that we've patented the Online Gaming Community(TM) that our Brand Managers would ever _think_ of sending, say, Cease and Desist orders to Dragonsfoot, EnWorld, RPG.net or everyone who hosts usenet newsgroups that have the rec.games.frp and associated subgroups pass through them.  No sir.  Not for a minute would we do that.  And I mean, really, when you look at it, didn't _we_ really create the optimum formula for creating Online Gaming Communities?"

-Frank Dewey, WotC legal consultants of Dewey, Cheatham and Howe.


----------



## Mike_Lescault (Jun 11, 2007)

Kaodi said:
			
		

> I think you underestimate the cohesion of this community. EN World has a lot of history and comraderie, which is something some new-fangled doohickey can't just up and replace.




I'd agree. Community (with a capital C) like the one that exists on EN World, isn't easily replaced. Each online community has their own flavor and traditions that tend to continue as long as a site is around. I suspect that the forum aspect of Gleemax will be similar to what the Wizard's forums are like now. However, I do expect people from other forums will take advantage of some of the other things they like from Gleemax, like personal pages, blogs, and some other helpful stuff.


----------



## BlackMoria (Jun 11, 2007)

Stupid Name.  Strike One against it.

I checked the site and it is stands right now, it is about as organized as a somebody learning XML would set up.  Lack of coherent content.  And what is with the alien brain theme?   It is too adolescent to attract serious gamers (as it stands for right now). Strike Two.

Nothing screams community or members to me.  First impressions being lasting ones, I think some people will give it a pass.  And me more than likely, though I am trying hard to not be judgemental.  Strike Three.

ENWorld will not be threatened by Gleemax.  I expect they will get the same demographic audience that aleady frequents the WOTC message boards right now.  And that is not a selling point as I find the signal to noise ratio on the WOTC message boards not to my liking.


----------



## crazy_monkey1956 (Jun 11, 2007)

Hi Mike...

Perhaps you can answer the burning question of the hour...what's with the name "Gleemax"?


----------



## Slife (Jun 11, 2007)

All I can say is it anagrams to "Exam Gel"


----------



## Mercule (Jun 11, 2007)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> Here is a long interview with Wizards of the Coast Vice President of Digital Games Randy Buehler on ICv2 about Gleemax.
> 
> http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/10687.html




Wow, that article implies that they think it'll actually gain traction with a name like Gleemax and that's the permanent name.

Bummer.  There's probably some potential to the idea but the name, the look, and the theme (attitude) are all pretty bad.  Who knows.  The name may grow on me, but if they keep the appearance and the insulting Gleemax persona, there ain't a chance.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Jun 11, 2007)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> I use ENWorld, RPG.net and BGG. If there is a sudden fourth choice of any quality - I'll use it too. But it won't be to the exclusion of the other three sites I already have used for some time.



Yeah, it's not like accessing one site kills the other site. Checking into a board takes what? Five minutes? If you're idly browsing for half an hour, you can probably get the gist of the most interesting threads on five or six messageboards.

And for the name: Umh... I think "Gleemax" is a joke that run _waaaay_ out of hand!


----------



## GreatLemur (Jun 11, 2007)

Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> Heh.  Stupid name, and yet another doomed attempt to 'get down' with what the kids R doing these days.   They'd be far better off working within the confines of MySpace than trying to create another on-line hangout.



The name is definitely setting new benchmarks for retarded marketing decisions.

But I do think there's actually use for creating "like MySpace but more specific" communities.  My wife's a cartoonist, and uses (along with every other promotional avenue imaginable) both MySpace, and a comics-specific MySpace knockoff called ComicSpace.  The latter has proven to be better by several orders of magnitude.

Of course, one major potential problem with Gleemax is that it might not be gaming-specific so much as WotC-specific, which will kind of suck.  The other thing I'd worry about is that the community will probably end up looking like the wizards.com forums.


----------



## hexgrid (Jun 11, 2007)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> I use ENWorld, RPG.net and BGG. If there is a sudden fourth choice of any quality - I'll use it too. But it won't be to the exclusion of the other three sites I already have used for some time.




QFT.

The Gleemax vs EN World question is fundamentally false. There's no reason anyone would need to choose one or the other.


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 11, 2007)

Gleemax != EN World.

'nuff said.


----------



## Dykstrav (Jun 11, 2007)

> Building on its heritage in the hobby gaming space with Magic: The Gathering® and Dungeons & Dragons®, coupled with its success with Magic Online® and *its understanding of what strategy, hobby and tabletop gamers want,* Wizards of the Coast (WotC) will now provide gamers with a centralized destination online to get everything they want or need.




Wonder who was able to write this with a straight face?


----------



## Hjorimir (Jun 11, 2007)

Yay, at least they didn't pick a name that can easily be manipulated into something like "Geekmax" to further paint a poor picture of those of us who like RPGs!


...wait!


----------



## Mike_Lescault (Jun 11, 2007)

crazypixie said:
			
		

> Hi Mike...
> 
> Perhaps you can answer the burning question of the hour...what's with the name "Gleemax"?




Not really. Although if I could go back in time and ask people what they thought of the idea of naming something "Google" I'd be very interested in their reaction.


----------



## GreatLemur (Jun 11, 2007)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> Here is a long interview with Wizards of the Coast Vice President of Digital Games Randy Buehler on ICv2 about Gleemax.
> 
> http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/10687.html



Aw, wow.  This is a real "WHEN MARKETING ATTACKS!" situation, here.


----------



## Henry (Jun 11, 2007)

Dykstrav said:
			
		

> Wonder who was able to write this with a straight face?



I'd say they've hit a pretty good track record so far - at least from my perspective. 

And there's nothing that says there can't be more than one portal for gamers to get their fix from.


----------



## hexgrid (Jun 11, 2007)

Mike_Lescault said:
			
		

> Not really. Although if I could go back in time and ask people what they thought of the idea of naming something "Google" I'd be very interested in their reaction.




Or, just look at the initial reaction when the "Revolution" was renamed the "Wii." 

Jokes about the name will fade pretty quickly once people get used to it, I think.


----------



## GreatLemur (Jun 11, 2007)

Mike_Lescault said:
			
		

> Not really. Although if I could go back in time and ask people what they thought of the idea of naming something "Google" I'd be very interested in their reaction.



Google never sounded like a dumb name to anybody who already knew the word.

A better comparison might be the Wii.  Maybe there are folks for whom that name has stopped being completely ridiculous, but I can vouch that penis and urine jokes were still being made about it last night.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 11, 2007)

Hjorimir said:
			
		

> Yay, at least they didn't pick a name that can easily be manipulated into something like "Geekmax" to further paint a poor picture of those of us who like RPGs!
> 
> 
> ...wait!



In the hierarchy of things to worry about, that has got to be right at the very bottom.


----------



## Arkhandus (Jun 11, 2007)

crazypixie said:
			
		

> Hi Mike...
> 
> Perhaps you can answer the burning question of the hour...what's with the name "Gleemax"?




It's a gag by WotC from some time ago; Gleemax is supposedly the alien brain in a jar (IIRC) that runs WotC.  Or something like that.  I'm not all that familiar with the original gag, but they've mentioned Gleemax other times before.  Sort of an in-joke for those who frequent the WotC website.

I really, really don't know what they were thinking when they decided to use the name for something besides the occasional joke.


----------



## Hjorimir (Jun 11, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> In the hierarchy of things to worry about, that has got to be right at the very bottom.



Well if you say so it must be true!


----------



## Elodan (Jun 11, 2007)

Gleemax?

All I can think of is the Gleemonex pill that 

'reaches into your brain "chemically," and then it locates your happiest memory "chemically," then it locks onto that emotion and freezes it "chemically," and then it keeps you happy, happy.'

from the under-rated film _Brain Candy_ by the Kids in the Hall.  Wonder if the site will be a happy, happy orange.


----------



## GreatLemur (Jun 11, 2007)

Arkhandus said:
			
		

> It's a gag by WotC from some time ago; Gleemax is supposedly the alien brain in a jar (IIRC) that runs WotC.  Or something like that.  I'm not all that familiar with the original gag, but they've mentioned Gleemax other times before.  Sort of an in-joke for those who frequent the WotC website.
> 
> I really, really don't know what they were thinking when they decided to use the name for something besides the occasional joke.



Well, that'd be a perfectly reasonable explanation.  I'd just be kind of bothered if somebody out there actually got paid to come up with this name with this specific usage in mind.  Stuff like that just sets off "completely out of touch with the audience" alarms, in my mind.


----------



## Mike_Lescault (Jun 11, 2007)

GreatLemur said:
			
		

> Google never sounded like a dumb name to anybody who already knew the word.




And the same could be said about Gleemax. 



> A better comparison might be the Wii.  Maybe there are folks for whom that name has stopped being completely ridiculous, but I can vouch that penis and urine jokes were still being made about it last night.




The name doesn't seem to be hurting the popularity of the Wii, but I suppose we'll have to see with Gleemax.


----------



## Mercule (Jun 11, 2007)

hexgrid said:
			
		

> Or, just look at the initial reaction when the "Revolution" was renamed the "Wii."




"Wii" is still a stupid name.  No, it's not going to discourage my purchase, should I ever decide I want another console, but that doesn't magically make the name not stupid -- or make me feel any less like I'm discussing a restroom break.

Just the same, Gleemax will continue to be a stupid name.  If the site manages to survive it will be in spite of that poor marketing decision.


----------



## Wolfspider (Jun 11, 2007)

The name doesn't bother me at all.  Face it.  The net is full of stupid names that can be easily mocked.

Youtube...rhymes with lube.
Google...ewww, goo.
ENworld...what, is that like ENema?

So.

What matters more is what the website will actually do for me and other gamers.

So we'll see.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 11, 2007)

Hjorimir said:
			
		

> Well if you say so it must be true!



I'm sorry, but worrying about what people I don't care about think about me is really not something I've found worth spending any energy on in decades. YMMV.

In any case, according to the big interview, Gleemax is not the DI and isn't particularly being aimed at D&D players. This is a Magic/CCG/other not-D&D games portal.


----------



## Piratecat (Jun 11, 2007)

GreatLemur said:
			
		

> A better comparison might be the Wii.  Maybe there are folks for whom that name has stopped being completely ridiculous, but I can vouch that penis and urine jokes were still being made about it last night.



Hey, that's not a bug -- it's a _feature!_


----------



## sjmiller (Jun 11, 2007)

Mike_Lescault said:
			
		

> And the same could be said about Gleemax.



But Mike, Google was actually a word (a mathmatic term to be picky) before it was a search engine.  Where did this gleemax thing come from?  Sounds like someone who misunderstood one too many marketing class came up with this name.  As far as names go, I will say again that Gleemax sure sounds like Funmin to me.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Jun 11, 2007)

Slife said:
			
		

> All I can say is it anagrams to "Exam Gel"



Or "Leg Exam." What exactly are they trying to do again?   




			
				thedungeondelver said:
			
		

> Quick, somebody get Fred Pohl on this, pronto. Or get an Oujia board and get Robert Heinlein on it.
> 
> "Suggested Reading:
> 
> ...



Couldn't find the Gleemax book anywhere. Not at Amazon.com or Powells.com (or on Pohl's Bibliography). Link? What's it about?


----------



## BlackMoria (Jun 11, 2007)

> In any case, according to the big interview, Gleemax is not the DI and isn't particularly being aimed at D&D players. This is a Magic/CCG/other not-D&D games portal.




Thank the gods for that, because if this was the inital showing of the DI, I say that we nuke it from orbit....


----------



## jrients (Jun 11, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> In any case, according to the big interview, Gleemax is not the DI and isn't particularly being aimed at D&D players. This is a Magic/CCG/other not-D&D games portal.




So we D&D players aren't "hardcore gamers" or "strategy, hobby and tabletop gamers"?  Because that's who the press release says is their target audience.  Heck, they mention D&D by name twice in that release.  "Wizards of the Coast (WotC) will now provide gamers with a centralized destination online to get everything they want or need." except for everything they're putting in the Digital Initiative?


----------



## Relique du Madde (Jun 11, 2007)

I don't think EnWorld has to worry... afterall with a name like Gleemax, you can tell that Wizards wants to market to children and preteens... now if thats not that where target audience is, then Wizards marketing crew needs to stop sniffing glue.


----------



## MrFilthyIke (Jun 11, 2007)

Maybe "Gleemax" is the medical name for the knee-jerk reactions common among gamers.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 11, 2007)

jrients said:
			
		

> So we D&D players aren't "hardcore gamers" or "strategy, hobby and tabletop gamers"?  Because that's who the press release says is their target audience.  Heck, they mention D&D by name twice in that release.  "Wizards of the Coast (WotC) will now provide gamers with a centralized destination online to get everything they want or need." except for everything they're putting in the Digital Initiative?



Read the interview. They're not targetting D&D players, whatever the release might say.

Gleemax (which isn't a marketing created term, it's a wacky MTG in-joke, which is another sign of who the audience is) is for Magic players and online games to compliment it, like the goblin game (which looks fun, frankly).


----------



## Dav (Jun 11, 2007)

sjmiller said:
			
		

> But Mike, Google was actually a word (a mathmatic term to be picky) before it was a search engine.  Where did this gleemax thing come from?  Sounds like someone who misunderstood one too many marketing class came up with this name.  As far as names go, I will say again that Gleemax sure sounds like Funmin to me.



Actually, "Google" isn't a word, even a mathematical one. You're thinking of "googol," which is 10^100. Supposedly the founders of "Google" meant to use "googol," but misspelled it. That doesn't say much for their spelling skills.


----------



## GreatLemur (Jun 11, 2007)

sjmiller said:
			
		

> But Mike, Google was actually a word (a mathmatic term to be picky) before it was a search engine.  Where did this gleemax thing come from?  Sounds like someone who misunderstood one too many marketing class came up with this name.  As far as names go, I will say again that Gleemax sure sounds like Funmin to me.



It's not a _word_, certainly, but I think his point was that the name did exist before this particular usage, as some kind of WotC in-joke.  Which I'd say probably makes the list of people who recognize the name a lot smaller than the list of folks who know what a google is, but the point stands, sort of.  It wasn't something a clueless marketing creature wrote on a whiteboard in front of the WotC execs, presumably.


----------



## DaveMage (Jun 11, 2007)

MrFilthyIke said:
			
		

> Maybe "Gleemax" is the medical name for the knee-jerk reactions common among gamers.





Ike FTW!


----------



## Relique du Madde (Jun 11, 2007)

Mercule said:
			
		

> "Wii" is still a stupid name..




I think Wii is actually a cleaver name since it causes someone to wonder if its means something beyond "weeeeeeee!"  or "we."    You got to love the way that those hiveminded corporate Japanese marketing people think....  maybe WoTC should borrow some and they will come up wityh a bettername then gleemax.


----------



## sjmiller (Jun 11, 2007)

Dav said:
			
		

> Actually, "Google" isn't a word, even a mathematical one. You're thinking of "googol," which is 10^100. Supposedly the founders of "Google" meant to use "googol," but misspelled it. That doesn't say much for their spelling skills.



See, this is what happens when I try accessing my "math brain" after I just finished discussing the history of newspaper comics.  As most of you probably do not know, Barney Google was a comic strip character that dates back to 1919.  So, actually, I was right.  Google was a word before it was used as a search engine.


----------



## GreatLemur (Jun 11, 2007)

Relique du Madde said:
			
		

> I think Wii is actually a cleaver name since it causes someone to wonder if its means something beyond "weeeeeeee!"  or "we."    You got to love the way that those hiveminded corporate Japanese marketing people think....



Honestly, even the Japanese public was making urine jokes about the thing.  Apparently, they know what it sounds like to an English speaker, and were much amused.


----------



## Riley (Jun 11, 2007)

Hjorimir said:
			
		

> Yay, at least they didn't pick a name that can easily be manipulated into something like "Geekmax" to further paint a poor picture of those of us who like RPGs!




I'd be proud to check out GeekMax, but I don't think it's likely I'll ever think of myself as a Minion of Gleemax.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 11, 2007)

Riley said:
			
		

> I'd be proud to check out GeekMax, but I don't think it's likely I'll ever think of myself as a Minion of Gleemax.



That's just what he wants you to think.


----------



## Henry (Jun 11, 2007)

> Supposedly the founders of "Google" meant to use "googol," but misspelled it. That doesn't say much for their spelling skills.




Well, Great Googly Moogly! Thanks for the info!


----------



## Riley (Jun 11, 2007)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> Here is a long interview with Wizards of the Coast Vice President of Digital Games Randy Buehler on ICv2 about Gleemax.
> 
> http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/10687.html




...In which he proudly states:



			
				Randy Buehler said:
			
		

> "In 6 months, 12 months, people will look at WotC as having three big brands, we've got Magic, D&D, and we've got Gleemax."




Any bets on how likely it is that that will become true?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 11, 2007)

Riley said:
			
		

> Any bets on how likely it is that that will become true?



No bets here. I would have bet against the Wii.


----------



## Riley (Jun 11, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> That's just what he wants you to think.




Gleemax knew you were going to say that, and chose to allow it.  For now.


----------



## Riley (Jun 11, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> No bets here. I would have bet against the Wii.




I did bet against the Wii.  I went to Best Buy one morning not too long ago to buy a new ethernet card for my nearly-dead PC, and I was very confused and dismayed by the long line of people waiting outside.  However, I was very pleased to learn that they were waiting for some new game system with a goofy controller, and that I could skip right past them to get my much-needed parts.

Sounds pretty dumb, I thought.


----------



## hexgrid (Jun 11, 2007)

Gleemax Magic Card:

http://ww2.wizards.com/Gatherer/CardDetails.aspx?name=Gleemax

I'm guessing Magic players are reacting to the name better than D&D players. It'd be like if they titled the site headofvecna.com.


----------



## Byrons_Ghost (Jun 11, 2007)

This whole thread reminds me of the old MST episode with the "sampo".

"Gleemax- ask for it by name!"

"I think Gleemax can be found in the laughter of a small child."

"Well, whatever Gleemax is, gamers want it more than anything- so it must be some kind of facial cream!"

etc.


----------



## jrients (Jun 11, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Read the interview. They're not targetting D&D players, whatever the release might say.




A press release that requires a follow-up interview to explain, said explanation directly contradicting the release?  What's the point of the press release, then?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 11, 2007)

jrients said:
			
		

> A press release that requires a follow-up interview to explain, said explanation directly contradicting the release?  What's the point of the press release, then?



Gleemax wants you confused and vulnerable.


----------



## heirodule (Jun 11, 2007)

he sees his competition as 







> It's a good question. I really feel that there's a tremendous white space available that nobody else is playing in, and I don't feel like we have direct competitors. You can look at an individual piece of it. If you look at the indie strategy games portal, I can point to Manifesto Games that's doing something similar but has a different take. With the board game portal, there are various publishers that have their board games online.
> 
> 
> 
> In terms of the big picture, in terms of social networking, you can look at MySpace as competition, I guess.



He doesn't know about boardgamegeek?


----------



## Kristian Serrano (Jun 11, 2007)

more information in the podcast.
Note: The podcast repeats, but I don't know if that's intentional.

Here's another blip...

Edit: Maybe it's not intentional.


----------



## hexgrid (Jun 11, 2007)

jrients said:
			
		

> A press release that requires a follow-up interview to explain, said explanation directly contradicting the release?  What's the point of the press release, then?




The only thing the press release says about D&D is that WotC publishes it.

Here's the relevant bit from the interview:



			
				Interview with WotC's Randy Buehler said:
			
		

> We do have plans for D&D. I'm sure you noticed the license to the Dungeon magazine and the Dragon magazine reverted to us. We let people know that we have plans, but we're not ready to announce them yet. The story that we're ready to tell at this stage is the story about Gleemax. The story about D&D is for another day.


----------



## AllisterH (Jun 11, 2007)

Gleemax is actually a term specific to the M:TG forum on the WOTC boards (the D&D corowd themselves have never heard/used the term).

It  basically is an in-joke relating to the original Unhinged "joke" magic set. Gleemax and Unhinged and the person/entity M:TG's     R&D blame for any "funny & crazy cards".


----------



## Merkuri (Jun 11, 2007)

I believe "Gleemax" is an inside WotC joke.  I've heard that Gleemax was supposed to be a disembodied brain that did all of the R&D for WotC, and my guess is that the Magic card was a tribute to that joke.

And I'm surprised nobody said it already, but it looks pretty obvious that Gleemax.com is the "Digital Initiative."


----------



## Keith Robinson (Jun 11, 2007)

I really don't have a problem with the name _Gleemax_ and actually prefer there to be some history behind it instead of just some random word chosen by some marketdroid somewhere.  It's just kinda fun.  Besides, as best as I can read into things from various public sources, both Dungeon and Dragon will still be used as a brand identity, so it wouldn't surprise me if they used one or both of these terms for the D&D side of the site.  I think Gleemax will just be an umbrella site under which their many product lines will sit, each with their own identity and digital area.


----------



## hexgrid (Jun 11, 2007)

Merkuri said:
			
		

> And I'm surprised nobody said it already, but it looks pretty obvious that Gleemax.com is the "Digital Initiative."




No, interview specifically points out that Gleemax.com has nothing to do with D&D.


----------



## Merkuri (Jun 11, 2007)

hexgrid said:
			
		

> No, interview specifically points out that Gleemax.com has nothing to do with D&D.




At the moment.  In the press release they labeled it a central "gamer" destination.  I believe, like others have said, that it's going to be the umbrella that all of their gamer online content will fall under.  Right now it's more Magic-centric, but I think they'll add D&D content as time goes on (probably closer to when Dungeon and Dragon breathe their last articles).


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jun 11, 2007)

MrFilthyIke said:
			
		

> Maybe "Gleemax" is the medical name for the knee-jerk reactions common among gamers.




Yup I think that's about right. 

It's a name that means something to a specific set of gamers and nothing to another set. I'd venture that WOTC has made more money off of Magic players than D&D gamers so let them cater to that audience. If the snark and bile generated here whenever WOTC so much as twitches is any indication then maybe theyre better off NOT catering to the RPG community at large ESPECIALLY in places like this.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 11, 2007)

Merkuri said:
			
		

> And I'm surprised nobody said it already, but it looks pretty obvious that Gleemax.com is the "Digital Initiative."



That's because it's not. Read the interview.


----------



## w_earle_wheeler (Jun 11, 2007)

I imagine Gleemax will be the MySpace to Enworld's LiveJournal. 

I'm curious to see how they'll handle criticisms of WotC's decisions and products over there, especially since WotC was apparently "afraid" to communicate with Enworld because the site is viewed as being anti-WotC -- despite the fact that most of us are their customers.

I'll use Gleemax if it draws the rest of the community, just like I use MySpace because so many of my friends use it. 

In the end, my continued use of their site will depend on their quality of moderation. Will they keep threads on track without censoring (seemingly) anti-WotC sentiment? Will the moderators be fair and impartial -- or power tripping nerds eager to start an elite clique? Or will the moderators be so hands-off that anything goes and the average thread reads like a pile of illiterate monkey crap?


----------



## Mark CMG (Jun 11, 2007)

ShinHakkaider said:
			
		

> If the snark and bile generated here whenever WOTC so much as twitches is any indication then maybe theyre better off NOT catering to the RPG community at large ESPECIALLY in places like this.





It's a funny name.


I think online communities sound more harsh than they really are because people are more prone to post when they disagree than when they agree.  Some communities also frown on the "Me, too" posts, which gives online communities an even more negative feel though at EN World you are bound to get a flurry of QFTs when a fairly popular opinion is proffered.  If the handful of people who post intensely negative responses to any single topic were really reflective of the actual sentiment, overall, WotC (many companies, in fact) would no longer be in business.  I think, too, that despite more stringent moderation, they seem to get it far worse on their own boards and elsewhere than here.


Still, it's a funny name.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 11, 2007)

There's not nearly enough terrible poetry here or discussions of dreams for ENWorld to be compared to LiveJournal.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jun 11, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> There's not nearly enough terrible poetry here or discussions of dreams for ENWorld to be compared to LiveJournal.





YOU HAVE 1 (ONE) NEW MESSAGE FROM TOM!
NOW PLAYING: KORN 'DEPRESSED BECUZ I CAN'T GO TO HOT TOPIC - STUPID MOM REMIX'

<img>
HAAAAY KOOL D00D WHZ UP!!11 SAW U AT THE GAME CON LAST NITERZZZ LATER GATERZ!
<img>
SUBSCRIBE NOW C1AL1S V1AGRA H00DIA 

...

etc.

Yeah, no, let's not go there and say we did. 

On second thought let's not even say we did.


----------



## Wik (Jun 12, 2007)

From wikipedia:



> Gleemax - This had been an inside joke among both Wizards R&D and Magic: the Gathering players. The infamous alien brain is said to secretly manipulate the Magic R&D division (as is mentioned in the flavor text). Its power is reflected by its control-freak nature, wherein it grants its controller the authority to choose spell and ability targets. Its Million mana cost means the player generally cannot play it by normal means.


----------



## molonel (Jun 12, 2007)

Dungeon magazine!

Dragon magazine!

And, now we have ..... Gleemax!

What were they thinking?


----------



## Fifth Element (Jun 12, 2007)

w_earle_wheeler said:
			
		

> Will the moderators be fair and impartial -- or power tripping nerds eager to start an elite clique? Or will the moderators be so hands-off that anything goes and the average thread reads like a pile of illiterate monkey crap?




So you're asking if they'll be like ENWorld, The Forge, or the Wizards boards, respectively?


----------



## MerricB (Jun 12, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> Dungeon magazine!
> 
> Dragon magazine!
> 
> ...




No, actually we'll soon have:

Dragon -> Dragon Online!
Dungeon -> Dungeon Online!
nothing -> Gleemax!

There are bunches of names that sound really, really stupid when you first hear them, but with familiarity comes acceptance and affection.

EN World is really a very, very stupid name for a mainly D&D site. The EN means *nothing* to new people. It means something to those of us who've been around for 7 years. (eep!) However, because EN World has been around for 6 years or so, it has recognition value. It means something beyond those two stupid letters at the beginning.

Cheers!


----------



## Varianor Abroad (Jun 12, 2007)

Well, it's not New Coke, that's for sure.

I think we need a new slogan around here:

ENWorld: Endlessly Discussing Anything Vaguely About D&D or E.D.A.V.A.D.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Jun 12, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> ...EN World... It means something beyond those two stupid letters at the beginning.
> 
> Cheers!



Stupid?
Sacrilege!!!

That's like saying stoopid Victorian... wait...no it's not 

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise (from the PREMIER state)


----------



## carmachu (Jun 12, 2007)

jrients said:
			
		

> So we D&D players aren't "hardcore gamers" or "strategy, hobby and tabletop gamers"?  Because that's who the press release says is their target audience.  Heck, they mention D&D by name twice in that release.  "Wizards of the Coast (WotC) will now provide gamers with a centralized destination online to get everything they want or need." except for everything they're putting in the Digital Initiative?





I'm going to blantantly steal a friends comments:

So, basically, they capped Dungeon magazine and Dragon magazine because Paizo was doing too good of a job and they risked competion.

They are going to be a social networking site, but they aren't going to compete with places like Enworld.

They are going to offer game reviews, but they aren't going to compete with game review sites.

Who are they going to compete with?

Myspace!

Riiiiight.


----------



## w_earle_wheeler (Jun 12, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> So you're asking if they'll be like ENWorld, The Forge, or the Wizards boards, respectively?




*taps nose knowingly*


----------



## Warbringer (Jun 12, 2007)

Ok, its new, but...

ERROR CODE 64^$64. BEGINNING PHYSICAL MEMORY SCAN>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  

and yes it's there color code...how matrix of them..

Oh and gleemax... hmmm


----------



## MerricB (Jun 12, 2007)

Herremann the Wise said:
			
		

> Stupid?
> Sacrilege!!!
> 
> That's like saying stoopid Victorian... wait...no it's not
> ...




Heh. I've lived in the Garden State, the state that was On The Move, the state that was going nowhere... and I haven't moved.

Cheers!


----------



## Michael Morris (Jun 12, 2007)

Can EN World compete?

I am one programmer - they are many.  I must spend 40-50 hours / week working on paying projects, they don't.

I spent so much effort trying to keep my prior job that I let my contract with WotC slip out of my fingers. Then again, they would never hire anyone without a degree on a permanent basis no matter how good or how much experience they had, so why invest in false hope?

Still, I can't remember a moment in the last year that I've felt more sad, more alone, and more up against the impossible than I do right now.


----------



## dagger (Jun 12, 2007)

Gleemax......... lol


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Jun 12, 2007)

Don't feel too bad, Michael. At least you're not the complete freaking moron who set up this page so that the Gleemax head sometimes *obscures the freaking text of the page* when you scroll:

*http://www.gleemax.com/articles/announcement001.html*

They're actually paying someone to make design decisions like that?


----------



## Mercule (Jun 12, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> No bets here. I would have bet against the Wii.




I wouldn't have.  Mock the stupid name, sure, but I was pretty excited about the Wii.

Gleemax doesn't have that luxury, especially when Wii had the cool new controller, etc. and Gleemax has... a website that looks like a radioactive cat urinated all over it.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 12, 2007)

Michael Morris said:
			
		

> Can EN World compete?




Can we, with lesser resources?  Probably not.

But are we actually a competetor?  I don't believe so.  I think we live in a niche that WotC, by it's corporate nature, and the fact that it owns the property, _cannot_ fill.  We are, in effect, part of the fourth estate of gaming - independant reportage, opinion and commentary.


----------



## Shalimar (Jun 12, 2007)

Mike_Lescault said:
			
		

> Not really. Although if I could go back in time and ask people what they thought of the idea of naming something "Google" I'd be very interested in their reaction.




The first I ever heard of Google was when a girl in my class said she googled the new girl.  It perked my ears right up.


----------



## Piratecat (Jun 12, 2007)

Guys -

First of all, it isn't fair to insult Gleemax based on a preview. When it finally debuts maybe it'll be incredibly useful, and maybe not, but consider this - WotC is going to do everything they can to make it as cool and useful as possible. This is high profile and very important -- and they have a lot of talented and ingenious people _who love D&D._ Frankly, I'm betting it's going to be awfully good, and that's a GOOD thing.

See, Gleemax isn't competing with EN World. They're not mutually exclusive. A lot of people will probably spend time at both, and that'll be great; cross-pollination of people and ideas will only make both sites stronger.

So please, don't react defensively if you worry we're threatened. We're not, and change isn't necessarily bad. Let's see if they make something that's useful and fun for us.


----------



## Mercule (Jun 12, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> First of all, it isn't fair to insult Gleemax based on a preview.




Good point.  I'd forgotten that it's a preview.  Radioactive urine mockery duly withdrawn.  I still think it's valuable criticism, though, and hope they change it dramatically.

I still don't think the "gleemax.com" domain is a good idea.  I've seen sites in the past (not related to gaming) that have had a "preview" with one URL then moved to another for the final release.  I really, really hope that's what's going to happen here because "gleemax" is just painful.

To be honest, if I didn't really want to see the Digital Initiative (and related projects) succeed, "gleemax" would be laughable.  It's the sort of thing I'd want a competitor to pick for their site.


----------



## SteveC (Jun 12, 2007)

You know, from looking at this, all I can say is that the largest gaming company, with marketing and a real r&d group behind them is still a lot like a baseball player.

The come out with Star Wars SAGA, to much acclaim.

Next at bat: gleemax.

Hope that works out for you.

My suggestion: fire whoever came up with that name immediately.

That's all for now...

--Steve


----------



## epochrpg (Jun 12, 2007)

> When my friends and I got into gaming, we walked into a hobby store and found a world of awesome games, a guy behind the counter who knew everything about them, and a bunch of people just like us who wanted to play.
> 
> But times change. Today, that hobby store is still there




   ...only now all they sell is d20 stuff.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jun 12, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Frankly, I'm betting it's going to be awfully good,




I'll put my money on it being haotically neutral.


----------



## WayneLigon (Jun 12, 2007)

I'll check it out but man! What a godawful name.


----------



## Festivus (Jun 12, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Can we, with lesser resources?  Probably not.
> 
> But are we actually a competetor?  I don't believe so.  I think we live in a niche that WotC, by it's corporate nature, and the fact that it owns the property, _cannot_ fill.  We are, in effect, part of the fourth estate of gaming - independant reportage, opinion and commentary.




And that is precisely why I prefer to come here over WoTC boards.  It's the unvarnished opinions of products that first drew me to this site.  As an added plus, the boards are not littered with err, l33t? speakers helps a ton too.  I didn't spend my entire life text messaging, and don't feel like trying to decrypt every thing I read because the posters are too lazy to write two extra letters or try to be k3wl by using the number three.

I don't feel threatened by Gleemax... I just think it's like the rest of the WoTC boards... something I will visit... rarely, and usually only if google tells me there is something of interest there to dig into.


----------



## No Name (Jun 12, 2007)

Gleemonex!


I need to watch Brain Candy again.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jun 12, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> I'll put my money on it being haotically neutral.





FIFTH ELEMENT FTW!


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 12, 2007)

"Gleemax" is a good name. It's goofy and memorable and people will talk about it in every day conversation and it will stick in their head and they will check it out to see what the hell it's all about.

...at the moment, it doesn't seem to be about much more than promises and fairy tales, though. We shall see.


----------



## Wraith Form (Jun 12, 2007)

Goddess FallenAngel said:
			
		

> That said, yet another Wizard's board couldn't matter any less to me.
> 
> And I'm sure that I'm not alone.



Yeah, really.  I began reading the press release and my eyes glazed over, my lids started drooping, and I nearly fell asleep about 16 times.

Gleemax = Meh.  I'll be buying another year of member ship on E N World, thanks very much.


----------



## Wraith Form (Jun 12, 2007)

Mercule said:
			
		

> Actually, it sounds like a stupidly cute name for an orgasm.  Or, maybe that's what the Kleenex is for.
> 
> I know ENWorld doesn't have to fear the loss of my business so long as their competitors use such bad names.  Seriously.  How do I approach my gaming group and say, "Hey, I found this cool rules idea on 'Gleemax' today?"  I couldn't do it with a straight face.  Ergo, I won't even bother with the site.



Amen.


----------



## Pramas (Jun 12, 2007)

It's a floorwax! No, it's a dessert topping!


----------



## Wraith Form (Jun 12, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> We are, in effect, part of the fourth estate of gaming - independant reportage, opinion and commentary.



So......you're saying we're a collective Hunter S Thompson?

Cool.


----------



## PatEllis15 (Jun 12, 2007)

Well, I'm going to delurk to support Gleemax.

First:  What happened to Dreamblade!  I thought the trifecta was going to be Magic, D&D, an Dreamblade... Hmmm....

Second:  Gleemax is being described as NOT a news site, NOR a simple message board about a specific subsegment of gaming.  I don't see how Gleemax will be a competitor to Enworld any more than Hordelings.com, or BGG.com competes with Enworld.  Many people have accounts on multiple messageboards, and everyone gets along just fine!

Seems to me that WotC is being pretty brave.  They clearly don't have a sound economic model, but they "know" that Hobby stores are central to the "next generation" of tabletop games (That is board, card, and pen and paper games).  They know that this effort will likely help their competitors as well, but they see that a rising tide saves all boats  (or what ever the saying is...).

I don't have a my space page...  but I'm likely to build a Gleemax page.  The hardest part of staying in gaming once i left college was finding a new group to play with.  I graduated in 1994, and moved to Portsmouth NH, and knew NO ONE.  I took me 5 years to find a new group to play with.  In college I used to play board games ALL the time.  Particularly the ones that take a while, like Diplomacy, Advaced Civilization etc.  I still haven't found a group of people near me to play those games.

The idea of having your own personal page that calls out the games you play, so that others in the area and seek you out is great.  Likewise, finding out that store XYZ which is only 20 minutes away is gong to try a D&D Miniatures tournament is great!



Sure, the Gleemax name is a bit odd, but not THAT odd.  It's a name, and it will be taken in and converted in our own minds...  I still think Revolution would have been a better name, but as the Wii was a strong console, it doesn't matter!


Don't be misled, why Gleemax won't have the DI content (i.e. no Dragon and Dungeon Content), they DO what D&D players involved...  I've never played Magic outside of my home in 1995, and the DCI doesn't know me for magic, only for DDM.  But I received a brain.  As did many like me.  It looks like they want ALL kinds of gamers so that they get good cross pollination...

Pat E


----------



## D.Shaffer (Jun 12, 2007)

Do people even bother to read threads anymore?   

Gleemax, as mentioned numerous times, is a long standing joke well known in the MTG community.  They didnt pick the name out of a hat, and if you take its prior history into consideration, it makes a great deal of sense.  MTG players seem to be a major target for the site, and you can bet many of them will understand where the name comes from.  Before you post your oh so witty mockery, please keep that in mind.  

In any case, the idea of the new site intrigues me.  I'll be watching as it develops and keeping an open mind about it.


----------



## Driddle (Jun 12, 2007)

hexgrid said:
			
		

> The Gleemax vs EN World question is fundamentally false. There's no reason anyone would need to choose one or the other.




I disagree. It should be part of the registration process.


----------



## Mortellan (Jun 12, 2007)

Gleemax? *laughs hysterically and moves on*


----------



## Bayushi Seikuro (Jun 12, 2007)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> Sounds like a bad Fifties sci-fi drug name from a story where everyone eventually takes Gleemax (_For Maximum Happiness!_) and become mindless automatons serving the greater good of society.




I think you might be mistaking it for Kids in the Hall: Braincandy.


----------



## Henry (Jun 12, 2007)

Michael Morris said:
			
		

> Still, I can't remember a moment in the last year that I've felt more sad, more alone, and more up against the impossible than I do right now.




Mike, there's no reason to feel that way, like Kevin said. Most of the successful people got where they are by not putting stock into fears of impossibility, or worry that the bigger guy was going to shut him out. The success came from going the best job they knew how to do. Be Proud, Kick Butt, and others will follow.

Not to mention, I don't see this Gleemax subsite, or even the Digital Initiative when it comes, as competitors to ENWorld, and from what I've seen so far, WotC's been nothing but cordial. I certainly hope the new drive to reach out to the fans continues, and that the goodwill doesn't change. If it were, however, we'd keep on trucking and doing the best we know how.


----------



## Aeolius (Jun 12, 2007)

Mortellan said:
			
		

> Gleemax? *laughs hysterically and moves on*




   Agreed. I actively avoided anything with the name Gleemax at wizards.com, simply because I couldn't take the name seriously. I would have much preferred "Flumphy-poo".


----------



## GlassJaw (Jun 12, 2007)

After reading some of the press releases, I'm really exicited by this.  I think WotC is really on the right track here.  In its simplest form, it's Myspace for gamers - frakkin brilliant.  It also sounds like a single portal to tie all their product lines together and to deliver new content.  A bold endeavor but a necessary one I think.  

I think the name works too.  It's quirky, it's easy to remember, and you really don't know it is exactly.  It kind of reminds me of NERPS from Shadowrun.


----------



## Merkuri (Jun 12, 2007)

D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> Do people even bother to read threads anymore?




Did they ever?    

I admit, I've been guilty of just skimming over a long thread in order to post my thoughts, only to find out later that what I said was already posted a few times (as was the case in this thread, I think).  They've done studies that say the average internet user only reads something like the first couple sentences in a paragraph, so four pages of conversation is just too much for most people to sit through before they can make themselves heard.

I think this thread has turned into one of those where people react to things written on the first page without reading the rest, and since there seems to be just two or three schools of thought on the subject they end up repeating themselves again and again.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 12, 2007)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> After reading some of the press releases, I'm really exicited by this.  I think WotC is really on the right track here.  In its simplest form, it's Myspace for gamers - frakkin brilliant.  It also sounds like a single portal to tie all their product lines together and to deliver new content.  A bold endeavor but a necessary one I think.
> 
> I think the name works too.  It's quirky, it's easy to remember, and you really don't know it is exactly.  It kind of reminds me of NERPS from Shadowrun.




Exactly.

Lots of people have wiki's or other pages for running their games.  I'm quite sure that fair numbers of the people reading this have web pages for their games.  A central space, myspace style, where you can stick up a page for your game, plus, hopefully, a VTT setup (perhaps cross pollinated with the DI) would be great.  

How is this even remotely in competition with ENWorld?  I dunno about you, but, it's pretty hard for me to run the EnWorld Virtual Table Top.  Maybe that's a subscriber feature I was unaware of?  Perhaps I can host my campaign wiki on Enworld as well.  I don't know, I never realized that those features were here.

This is a completely different beast.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Jun 12, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Guys -
> 
> First of all, it isn't fair to insult Gleemax based on a preview. When it finally debuts maybe it'll be incredibly useful, and maybe not, but consider this - WotC is going to do everything they can to make it as cool and useful as possible. This is high profile and very important -- and they have a lot of talented and ingenious people _who love D&D._ Frankly, I'm betting it's going to be awfully good, and that's a GOOD thing.




I would disagree with you on the first point but agree with you on the rest. The point of a preview is to give the potential  customer a glimpse at what is being offered in order to wet  thier appettite for the final product. In this case I feel they failed misserably. I too feel that the overall concept has some merrit and is worth a shot to see if it works. The problem is that the preview presented has absolutely nothing to do with the main concept. 

First they picked a name that only has meaning to insiders and one particular game (and only to the hardcore players who bought Unhinged) and additionally opens itself to ridicule. Why not pick a name that can be understood and embraced by all gamers if this is supposed to be a site for all gamers. 

Next up they make a temporary website where people can go once the name and concept has been released. This website however also has nothing to do with a website for all gamers. Instead it is a website about a game based on a character from M:tG. The content of this temporary site should be promoting the final concept and telling people what to expect. Additionaly the boards there are all about the game as well instead of covering the concept. There should be at least a section if not the main premise of those boards to talk about the main concept and help build a real community that will migrate to the final product. This community could also provide suggestions and ideas about what a community for gamers should include. 

Lastly they also take this temporary website and skin it in the worst way possible. As harsh as it sounds radioactive cat urine is a fairly acurate description of the impression given. The color combination alone is siomething that will turn off alot a people stopping by to check it out for the first time. Once more this is supposed to be about all gamers but instead they skin it in color combinations that will turn away many otherwise interested people. I personally found it irritating to just look at the site even though I was interested to find out what it was about. I certainly won't be using the forums because of this issue alone even if they changed them to cover the main concept.

For these reasons I feel that once more WotC marketing and PR have failed at thier jobs. WotC has an interesting idea and one that certainly deserves exploring. It is quite possible that the design and implementation people will come through in the end but they will be so while at the same time trying to overcome future resistance to thier idea that customers might have based on thier impressions of this preview. 

While the language in some of these posts may be harsh and insulting the point still needs to be gotten accross. If this is supposed to be for and about gamers then they need to listen to the gamers. So far the gamers have spoken and while they may be for the main concept of a myspace for gamers they are certainly against the actual solid product released so far however limited it might be. If the final product is going to be a success they need to hear and understand that the final product needs to be nothing like the preview we have right now. To continue down this path and leave up the existing preview website will only handicap the success of the final product.


----------



## Nebulous (Jun 12, 2007)

What the hell?  Out of the gagillion options available to them, they picked the name "GleeMax?"  For maximum glee? Fun-a-rific!


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Jun 12, 2007)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> After reading some of the press releases, I'm really exicited by this.  I think WotC is really on the right track here.  In its simplest form, it's Myspace for gamers - frakkin brilliant.




The shoals of the internet are littered with the wrecks of companies that made business plans around the concept of 'It's just like (Google/Yahoo/Ebay/Amazon/YouTube/MySpace] but for [GenXers/Baby Boomers/Whatever]'.

If you want to grow the hobby, you don't take a 'build it and they will come' attitude.  You go to where they are.   This may do very well with existing CCG/CMG players, but I don't think it will have any impact on growing the hobby.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Jun 12, 2007)

Rather than edit my long post above I will add one more thing here. I am not opposed to the Gleemax game. It is fine as an piece of the site. What should have happened is before the preview was annouced something of the final umbrella concept should have been impossed on the site and the Gleemax game should have been reduced to its proper place as the first piece of the larger picture.


----------



## hexgrid (Jun 12, 2007)

Merkuri said:
			
		

> At the moment.  In the press release they labeled it a central "gamer" destination.  I believe, like others have said, that it's going to be the umbrella that all of their gamer online content will fall under.  Right now it's more Magic-centric, but I think they'll add D&D content as time goes on (probably closer to when Dungeon and Dragon breathe their last articles).




I don't know- it'd be a huge waste of the Dragon and Dungeon brands if they just made them part of Gleemax.


----------



## Aeolius (Jun 12, 2007)

I find the entire theme of minions of Gleemax to be demeaning and condescending. Also, I don't DM Sci-Fi games. The layout of gleemax.com is obvious meant to appeal to a sci-fi crowd.

I'd like to see WotC set up growf.com, for the D&D crowd. 





But then again, that would entail pink message boards, so never mind.


----------



## Contrarian (Jun 12, 2007)

w_earle_wheeler said:
			
		

> I imagine Gleemax will be the MySpace to Enworld's LiveJournal.




Clearly, Gleemax got to you.  He's using mind control to damn Enworld with faint praise.

But seriously folks: You know what the most significant differences between Gleemax and Enworld are going to be?

1) Gleemax will (probably) be advertised in the D&D rulebooks.  D&D newbies will know about Gleemax before they know about Enworld or other boards.

2) Gleemax won't have an annual funding crisis.

The "threat" of Gleemax isn't that it will steal existing users from Enworld or other boards.  The threat is that it will grab newbies _before_ they discover other boards.  That has the potential to limit the long-term growth of those other boards.  Which is doubly-bad when you've got a site that clearly needs more revenue than it's getting.

No predictions of doom here. Just a possibility to consider.  The effects, if any, will be subtle (a decrease in _new_ memberships), and they won't be noticeable for a year or two -- long enough for WOTC to market Gleemax to the next wave or two of incoming gamers.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 12, 2007)

You mean, grab new players the way that the Wizards board already does?

Come on, do you really think EnWorld is the first stop for new gamers?

I can see it now - "Oh wow, Dad, thanks, I really wanted this Players Handbook.  Now I can finally check out that ENWorld place I keep hearing about."


----------



## carmachu (Jun 12, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Guys -
> 
> First of all, it isn't fair to insult Gleemax based on a preview. When it finally debuts maybe it'll be incredibly useful, and maybe not, but consider this - WotC is going to do everything they can to make it as cool and useful as possible. This is high profile and very important -- and they have a lot of talented and ingenious people _who love D&D._ Frankly, I'm betting it's going to be awfully good, and that's a GOOD thing..





You know what they say about first impressionss, dont you?

They had a small opportunity to wow the community with its preview, especially on the heels of the bad publicity of axing Dungeon and Dragon magazine.....and this is what they gave us.....

Its not looking good at the moment.


----------



## GlassJaw (Jun 12, 2007)

Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> If you want to grow the hobby, you don't take a 'build it and they will come' attitude.  You go to where they are.   This may do very well with existing CCG/CMG players, but I don't think it will have any impact on growing the hobby.




Couldn't disagree more.

The successes of the internet are built on the open source community model.  That's why Myspace and YouTube become insanely popular.  They were places in which the _people _could build and evolve the community on their own.

They succeeded because a) there was a need for such a space and b) the developers got the interface and usability right.

I think there is a need for such a site for gamers.  Now it's up to WotC to provide something people will want to use and contribute to.  Honestly, this is the first annoucement in a long while from WotC that has really grabbed me.


----------



## Maggan (Jun 12, 2007)

Heh.

Gleemax is catching a lot of flack.

But names can grow on you. For example, "Green Ronin", what kind of name is that? A green ronin? Is he painted green? Is he a newbie? Why is he green? Is it an internal thing?

But now, "Green Ronin" is established and people don't think about it. They just think of a great company.

So Gleemax could work in the end. Worse names did.

/M


----------



## GlassJaw (Jun 12, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Lots of people have wiki's or other pages for running their games.  I'm quite sure that fair numbers of the people reading this have web pages for their games.  A central space, myspace style, where you can stick up a page for your game, plus, hopefully, a VTT setup (perhaps cross pollinated with the DI) would be great.




Again, assuming WotC does it right, I would be overjoyed with this news if I was a small publisher.  Imagine how many more people you could reach with WotC's audience.  Honestly, the percentage of people that even know EN World exists is so miniscule compared to the numer of gamers out there.  WotC should embrace the 3rd party publishers and allow them to advertise and discuss their products on Gleemax.  

Their press release said they are also looking for members for an Advisory Board to provide insight on what Gleemax should.  Again, I'm really hoping WotC reaches out to other publishers and developers (for RPG products and otherwise).

The more open source this project is, the better.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Jun 12, 2007)

Like others in this thread, I don't believe ENWorld has anything to worry about. It has years of service and thousands of supporters and that isn't something that will likely go away easily. If Gleemax were offering some kind of change in format (similar to the shift between Usenet or mailing lists and Message Boards), then I could see where there might be a massive- if gradual- drift, but not for this Gleemax thing as I understand it.

I'm not quite clear if Gleemax is supposed to replace the Wizards Community as it currently exists or not- if so, then it would certainly become a viable community on its own; if not, Wizards is essentially competing with itself for the online demographic, which seems strange.

Gleemax does sound really stupid- I wonder what was going on in the marketing meeting that made that the most appealing naming option?


----------



## Contrarian (Jun 12, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> You mean, grab new players the way that the Wizards board already does?




The WOTC message boards are still largely an afterthought.  They don't promote them to newbies. I can't even find a mention of them in the PHB -- just a www.wizards.com/dnd at the bottom of the title page, and an ad for D&D Rewards in the back that obliquely mentions "a community of D&D fans."

We shouldn't act like Gleemax is what-they-do-now-with-a-new-name.   WOTC is taking "community" (whatever the hell that means on the Internet _this week_) more seriously now.  This has the potential to change things.


----------



## crazy_monkey1956 (Jun 12, 2007)

Having opened this can of worms, let me insert my optimistic thoughts...

WotC has, thus far, been supportive of Enworld.  Enworld merits a mention in D&D for Dummies.  Enworld was the first place WotC went, even before their own message boards, to give out some kernels of info on the DI.  

From a non-WotC perspective, the Ennies have as much clout and respectability factor for publishers as, if not more than, the Origins awards.  (Someone please correct me if the Ennies aren't as tied to Enworld as I think.)  

And, looking at Gleemax a little more thoroughly, it does seem as though the goal of the site is different than Enworld.

To Michael Morris specifically, I want to apologize for the doom and gloom of the initial post.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Jun 12, 2007)

Contrarian said:
			
		

> The "threat" of Gleemax isn't that it will steal existing users from Enworld or other boards.  The threat is that it will grab newbies _before_ they discover other boards.  That has the potential to limit the long-term growth of those other boards.  Which is doubly-bad when you've got a site that clearly needs more revenue than it's getting.
> 
> No predictions of doom here. Just a possibility to consider.  The effects, if any, will be subtle (a decrease in _new_ memberships), and they won't be noticeable for a year or two -- long enough for WOTC to market Gleemax to the next wave or two of incoming gamers.



Well, if Gleemax delivers what it promises, then there is a good chance that a decent number of EN World members will have their own pages on Gleemax.  Many of those pages will probably link to EN World itself, to other EN World members and to EN Publishing (perhaps thereby helping the funding issues).

If it doesn't deliver, people will be looking for other information sources and might find EN World that way (that's how I found this place).  

As for an "annual funding crisis," while they won't be having to request donations from people, they will instead have to answer to corporate and show their business plan is successful and returning on the investment.  It is more likely to go through dramatic changes or even shut down with little notice than EN World probably is.


----------



## TessarrianDM (Jun 12, 2007)

Quite frankly, I do not care what Wizard's does online anymore. They lost me completely as a customer when they announced the end of Dragon magazine. The only reasons I visited their current website were for rule interpretations through errata and the talkboard; that announcement led me here and I have not been back to their website since. I will continue to support my local gaming store, purchasing OGL d20 items and miniatures from other companies, but have decided to no longer purchase anything from them, including novels. 

As a group, we use very little online material for our gaming. Only two of the ten players spend any time at all on game-related sites. The group is very stable, with the core of it having played together since 1982. The newest members are sons of two of the older members, and they have been part of it for five years. While we have enjoyed using new material, and changed editions as they came out, we have decided that 3.5 is our game. With over 20 sourcebooks on hand, we have plenty of material to use.

 So, more power to them; I hope it works out for those of you who prefer that kind of content and format. We'll stick with our little homebrew campaign and watch the world pass us by...


----------



## pedr (Jun 12, 2007)

Something that no-one has mentioned so far (as far as I've seen).

There doesn't seem to be a reason why ENWorld couldn't have a Gleemax page. ENWorld regulars could 'friend' ENWorld, ENWorld could be talked up as a place to discuss D&D, ENWorld members could run (ENWorld branded?) games in whatever virtual space they provide and so forth. 

WotC's aim, it seems, is to provide a 'home for gamers' using the philosophy that attracting more people to any part of the hobby strenthens the hobby for everyone - WotC, small press RPG publishers, euro-board-game producers, and so on.


----------



## DJCupboard (Jun 12, 2007)

The thing to keep in mind about competition between enworld and gleemax is that it sounds an awful lot like ENworld (and EN Publishing) is exactly the kind of thing that can take advantage of greemax free portals, so this could be agreat growth oportunity for us over here.

There is, of course, always the possibility that I am reading all of this wrong.

~Dave~


----------



## rgard (Jun 12, 2007)

Enworld is my home page.  I don't see changing this anytime soon.

And what were they thinking, "Gleemax"?


----------



## Driddle (Jun 12, 2007)

There are a lot of quirky names out there that stick in my head for no good reason, regardless of how "silly" they might have seemed at the time -- Amazon.com and eBay, for example. Google, Yahoo, BoingBoing? (And in fencing, it's askFRED.) 

The more that people joke about GleeMax here, the more it gets lodged in my brain.


----------



## Schmoe (Jun 12, 2007)

I actually think Gleemax is a pretty inspired idea.  One of the most difficult parts of role-playing is finding a group.  This takes the networking tools of something like MySpace and focuses it on gamers.  I think, in the long run, this will help to build a better gaming community.

As others have said, I also don't see this as the end of ENWorld.  There's nothing that makes the two sites mutually exclusive.  Do you think that MySpace users don't go to other forums?  If anything, Gleemax may drive more traffic to ENWorld, as more people network and learn about the site.


----------



## Jeremy757 (Jun 12, 2007)

Buehler's statement keeps saying "strategy games".  Does that mean D&D is going to be consider a strategy game now and not a role-playing game or are role-playing games like D&D not going to be included in Gleemax.


----------



## Mercule (Jun 12, 2007)

Aeolius said:
			
		

> Agreed. I actively avoided anything with the name Gleemax at wizards.com, simply because I couldn't take the name seriously. I would have much preferred "Flumphy-poo".




Heh.  Actually, "boxofflumph.com" would have been a significantly better name.  Still not a great name, but a vast improvement.  Why?

1) It doesn't sound like an orgasm or sex toy vendor.
2) It's an object, not a person/entity (I think "mordenkainen.com" would be almost as stupid as "gleemax.com" -- see point #1 for the major difference).
3) There is no insulting metapersonality that comes with the concept.
4) It's lame, but in the "neurotic fatbeard joke" way, not the "creepy child molester" way.
5) Significantly lower risk of a blinding, radioactive cat urine visual theme.

Gleemax is a cute inside joke.  Seriously, I kinda like it.  Using that joke as a public identity is goofy.


----------



## MrFilthyIke (Jun 12, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Guys -
> 
> First of all, it isn't fair to insult Gleemax based on a preview. When it finally debuts maybe it'll be incredibly useful, and maybe not, but consider this - WotC is going to do everything they can to make it as cool and useful as possible. This is high profile and very important -- and they have a lot of talented and ingenious people _who love D&D._ Frankly, I'm betting it's going to be awfully good, and that's a GOOD thing.
> 
> ...




QFT.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 12, 2007)

But ... EN World will be getting a *lime green theme*, right?
I See A Great Need (tm).

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Michael Morris (Jun 12, 2007)

ENWorld will be lime green when Russ shoots me and scatters my remains over the whole of the Atlantic Ocean.

Lime Green -- blech...


----------



## Mercule (Jun 12, 2007)

Schmoe said:
			
		

> I actually think Gleemax is a pretty inspired idea.  One of the most difficult parts of role-playing is finding a group.  This takes the networking tools of something like MySpace and focuses it on gamers.  I think, in the long run, this will help to build a better gaming community.




I don't think many people are knocking the concept.  Speaking for myself, I think it's a great idea.  The choice of name and the horrendous color scheme both make me question the ability of WotC to implement the whole deal in a competent manner.


----------



## Schmoe (Jun 12, 2007)

From the interview.



			
				Randy Buehler said:
			
		

> Yes.





			
				Randy Buehler said:
			
		

> Good question. We're hitting the limits of what I'm allowed to talk about publicly...





			
				Randy Buehler said:
			
		

> ... because Hasbro is a publicly traded corporation, there are limits to what I'm allowed to say.




Just as a minor nitpick, I think Randy could use a little practice with his interviewing.  He comes off as a little on a high-horse and emphasizes what he's limited to, rather than trying to give some helpful information.



			
				Randy Buehler said:
			
		

> Our first target is tabletop gamers, and not just Magic gamers, but tabletop gamers and all that construes...





			
				Randy Buehler said:
			
		

> ... Big picture, give away the social networking for free, make our money off ads, and make our money off the games.





			
				Randy Buehler said:
			
		

> We intend to talk about other people's games too.





			
				Randy Buehler said:
			
		

> I don't want to try and compete with the game news sites; that's not something we feel like we have any expertise in...




So obviously, they aren't setting themselves up as competitors for new sites (such as ENWorld), and they are trying to draw in the tabletop gamer community as a whole, rather than just WOTC gamers.  That's a good thing, IMO.  Not only does it help to create a larger community, but it also leaves room for the more focused sites.

And this little nugget...



			
				Randy Buehler said:
			
		

> ... In terms of letting the competitor set up shop in the network, we're not going to charge for that at all. The idea is that this is a home for gamers, so if somebody wants to create a personal page around a game that they're publishing, great, they should, this is the space where that's supposed to happen...




... opens up a lot of opportunity to bring a lot of people together and make the industry feel more like a community.  Not that the industry has a problem with that at the moment, but this just further encourages it.

Finally, to dispel some confusion from further up in this thread:



			
				ICV2.com said:
			
		

> Will the online initiatives that are replacing the print magazines be part of Gleemax?





			
				Randy Buehler said:
			
		

> Not directly.  We have a lot of really good ideas that I'm aware of, but we're not ready to talk about them yet...


----------



## Schmoe (Jun 12, 2007)

Mercule said:
			
		

> I don't think many people are knocking the concept.  Speaking for myself, I think it's a great idea.  The choice of name and the horrendous color scheme both make me question the ability of WotC to implement the whole deal in a competent manner.




Well, let's hope that they get lots of valuable feedback from people who checked out the preview (hint hint), and that they act on it.


----------



## Nareth (Jun 12, 2007)

I just hope that this Gleemax thing isn't what they planned to take the place of Dungeon and Dragon Magazine. How pathetic would that be?


----------



## Mercule (Jun 12, 2007)

Schmoe said:
			
		

> Just as a minor nitpick, I think Randy could use a little practice with his interviewing.  He comes off as a little on a high-horse and emphasizes what he's limited to, rather than trying to give some helpful information.




I disagree.  WotC has received so much flack on the DI for giving half-answers and being evasive that I don't think they should go that way.  Specifically, with the DI, every time WotC gives a partial answer or says, "wait and see", people accuse them of not actually having any sort of plan.  By saying, "NDA" or "FTC rules", they show they have a plan, they just have reason to not share it.

Personally, I appreciate the "FTC rules" approach a lot more.  I find it shows respect for me and the fact that I can understand the way business works.  It's also less manipulative in the sense that they are not trying to dodge questions or hide (even minor) information.

That said, he probably have handled himself somewhat better, but it wasn't horrible by any means -- especially if he is either new to the role or is otherwise unacustomed to giving interviews.


----------



## DJCupboard (Jun 12, 2007)

I also like how it sounds as if the networking tools will autofill my calendar for me with local meet-ups and alert me of other gamers/stores in the area.  Now that's proactive use of client profile.


----------



## Mark CMG (Jun 12, 2007)

Michael Morris said:
			
		

> Still, I can't remember a moment in the last year that I've felt more sad, more alone, and more up against the impossible than I do right now.





Sounds like someone hasn't taken his Gleemax. 


Seriously, Michael, don't let it worry you.  Many people will probably use Gleemax, EN World, and whatever else they currently use to gather their info.  In fact, you will need to prepare for the influx of new people once all the links from Gleemax to EN World are added to people's MaxPages and the myriad of mentions EN World will get in people's GleeLogs.




			
				Pramas said:
			
		

> It's a floorwax! No, it's a dessert topping!





That's right, Babs!  Gleemax is both a floorwax and a desert topping!




			
				Bayushi Seikuro said:
			
		

> I think you might be mistaking it for Kids in the Hall: Braincandy.





I see now that several people are making mention of that.  I feel bad that I had forgotten all about it.  I feel like a Foley-come-lately.  I wonder how many Helens agree about Gleemax?


----------



## Ry (Jun 12, 2007)

Here's one thing that EN World has that Gleemax won't have:  Strong, capable, and attentive moderation.  WotC, as much as I love them, can't enforce even the Grandma rule consistently (let alone the on-topic rule or the civility rule), and I can't imagine them being able to do so on Gleemax.


----------



## Cam Banks (Jun 12, 2007)

I can't wait to set up my own Gleemax page so that I can get hundreds of half-naked female "gamers" friend-requesting me or telling me to go to their website since Gleemax won't let them show me all the really good "adventures."

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Michael Morris (Jun 12, 2007)

rycanada said:
			
		

> Here's one thing that EN World has that Gleemax won't have:  Strong, capable, and attentive moderation.  WotC, as much as I love them, can't enforce even the Grandma rule consistently (let alone the on-topic rule or the civility rule), and I can't imagine them being able to do so on Gleemax.



 If you halved the age of the posters here I imagine Piratecat & co would have a similar amount of trouble.  The WizOs do a very good job moderating that monster of a board - please don't diss them.


----------



## Schmoe (Jun 12, 2007)

*Minor OT Quibble Alert!!!*



			
				Mercule said:
			
		

> I disagree.  WotC has received so much flack on the DI for giving half-answers and being evasive that I don't think they should go that way.  Specifically, with the DI, every time WotC gives a partial answer or says, "wait and see", people accuse them of not actually having any sort of plan.  By saying, "NDA" or "FTC rules", they show they have a plan, they just have reason to not share it.
> 
> Personally, I appreciate the "FTC rules" approach a lot more.  I find it shows respect for me and the fact that I can understand the way business works.  It's also less manipulative in the sense that they are not trying to dodge questions or hide (even minor) information.
> 
> That said, he probably have handled himself somewhat better, but it wasn't horrible by any means -- especially if he is either new to the role or is otherwise unacustomed to giving interviews.




Oh, I definitely agree that I appreciate when someone tells me why they cannot divulge more information on a particular topic, and I'm by no means raking him over the coals on this one.  But, I also think that, after you've told someone what you cannot say, you should then try to emphasize something positive that you can say.  I think the example that really jumped out at me was this:



			
				ICV2.com said:
			
		

> You mentioned that with Magic Online you have a thriving business in selling digital objects.  Can you characterize its size?





			
				Randy Buehler said:
			
		

> I can tell you that we have over 300,000 accounts, and I'm not allowed to give you revenue numbers; because Hasbro is a publicly traded corporation, there are limits to what I'm allowed to say.




ICV2 is asking for a characterization of the business size, and he effectively ends the answer with "Not gonna tell you."  It would have been good to follow that up with something like "But we are happy with how the business has been progressing and are looking to continue to grow it." 

Sure, it's press-release vaguerise, but people say that stuff for a reason 

It also didn't help that the example I mentioned followed a one word answer to the first question, and the first thing he said to the next question was "We're hitting the limits of what I'm allowed to talk about publicly."  It makes people wonder why they're reading the interview.

Anyway, overall the interview was still pretty good and informative.


----------



## Schmoe (Jun 12, 2007)

Cam Banks said:
			
		

> I can't wait to set up my own Gleemax page so that I can get hundreds of half-naked female "gamers" friend-requesting me or telling me to go to their website since Gleemax won't let them show me all the really good "adventures."
> 
> Cheers,
> Cam




Now that's some role-playing I can really get into!


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 12, 2007)

crazypixie said:
			
		

> I don't normally don't take the role of doomsayer, but...
> 
> So here I am reading over the press release that details WotC's new Gleemax doohicky and I'm thinking to myself...they're putting themselves into direct competition with Enworld.  All of the features described in the press release, as well as a quick tour of the site seem to make it out to be everything that enworld already is.
> 
> ...




If that was their intent, then they are being a bit dumb about it.  It would have been a heck of a lot cheaper to just offer to buy EnWorld from Morrus, and pay him and the mods and other people who work on EnWorld some money to continue to work for EnWorld for the next year.


----------



## Mercule (Jun 12, 2007)

Schmoe said:
			
		

> Oh, I definitely agree that I appreciate when someone tells me why they cannot divulge more information on a particular topic, and I'm by no means raking him over the coals on this one.  But, I also think that, after you've told someone what you cannot say, you should then try to emphasize something positive that you can say.




Fair enough.  And, I pretty well agree with that notion.  It sounds like we really aren't all that far apart on this one, after all.

:group hug:


----------



## Schmoe (Jun 12, 2007)

Mercule said:
			
		

> :group hug:




We should really get together on Gleemax with Cam Banks on this one


----------



## Ry (Jun 12, 2007)

Michael Morris said:
			
		

> If you halved the age of the posters here I imagine Piratecat & co would have a similar amount of trouble.  The WizOs do a very good job moderating that monster of a board - please don't diss them.




Sorry, I meant "can't" in a resource-availability way, not a talent-availability way, and I wasn't clear on that.  So I agree with you 100%.  I just don't see the resource problem changing with Gleemax.

WotC's boards has a lot of great, talented, hardworking mods.


----------



## Cam Banks (Jun 12, 2007)

Schmoe said:
			
		

> We should really get together on Gleemax with Cam Banks on this one




My eyes! My eyes!

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 12, 2007)

Cam Banks said:
			
		

> My eyes! My eyes!



Gleemax will have new eyes available for you after the operation.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Jun 12, 2007)

Wow, this thread reminds me a lot about the one that went life when the first details about Eberron leaked to Gamingreport....

Oh well. ENworld is such a cool site most of the time. I can live with "haha, stupid!11!1" threads now and then. :\


----------



## LeaderDesslok (Jun 12, 2007)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> Gleemax != EN World.
> 
> 'nuff said.



(In my best Charlton Heston impression) GLEEMAX IS PEOPLE!


----------



## LeaderDesslok (Jun 12, 2007)

Maggan said:
			
		

> Heh.
> 
> Gleemax is catching a lot of flack.
> 
> ...



In a wider view, consider an auction site named EBay. Huh? What's an EBay? Or how about YouTube. Not only bad grammar, but it doesn't make a lot of sense.

Although it sounds like a new brand of toothpaste, it's not as horrible as it first appears.


----------



## hexgrid (Jun 12, 2007)

LeaderDesslok said:
			
		

> What's an EBay?




If you really want to know...



			
				wikipedia said:
			
		

> Originally, the site belonged to Echo Bay Technology Group, [eBay founder] Omidyar's consulting firm. Omidyar had tried to register the domain name EchoBay.com but found it already taken by the Echo Bay Mines, a gold mining company, so he shortened it to his second choice, eBay.com.




So, yeah, the name of a website indicates nothing about its chance of success.


----------



## mattcolville (Jun 12, 2007)

I would probably judge the initiative based on the name, except for one thing.

Wii.

I can't tell you how powerfully that name divided the development community. People, intelligent, well-reasoned people, bet real money that it was a joke.

Turns out, it's a fine name and who cares? It's the product that matters.

I don't know how the DI will compete with ENWorld, but if I were the guys who run this place, I'd be following the Gleemax thing closely and trying to find a way for ENWorld users to gain something here they can't get there.

In the end, though, you have to ask yourself; does ENWorld exist because WotC has dropped the ball? And, if so, what happens if WotC picks up the ball?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 12, 2007)

Keefe the Thief said:
			
		

> I can life with "haha, stupid!11!1" threads now and then. :\



BECAUSE GLEEMAX COMMANDS YOU TO!


----------



## Drowbane (Jun 12, 2007)

crazypixie said:
			
		

> What if WotC, in a move similar to the CSG patent, attempts to patent the "online gaming community" format?




lol


----------



## pawsplay (Jun 12, 2007)

crazypixie said:
			
		

> This can't be good for enworld, can it?




Most of the time, friendly competition helps everybody. Think of it as growth in the online gaming community.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 12, 2007)

I for one welcome our new lime-green GLEE.N.World masters.

Mua-ha-ha, -- N


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jun 12, 2007)

Gleemax sounds like some kind of sexual protective device.

"Man, I woulda gotten laid last night, but she had her Gleemax on!"


----------



## Merkuri (Jun 12, 2007)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> Gleemax sounds like some kind of sexual protective device.




That's funny... I think that's the exact opposite of what most people think it sounds like.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 12, 2007)

The more people complain about the name, the more I want to use a Brain in a Jar from Libris Mortis in an adventure.


----------



## Khairn (Jun 13, 2007)

Here are a few random thoughts ...

Letter from the VP of Digital Gaming explaining what they are trying to do is a good thing.  Hey, I said WotC did a "good thing".  I need to write that down in my journal.  Now for the rest of this ...

The name ... Gleemax ?  Ugh  A tribute to an obscure Magic The Gathering card.  Ugh Ugh

Font ... yech

Style ... oops that dosn't look right.  In fact my eyes are burning.

Since when did being called a minion become kewl?

Overall, my willingness to ever see that site again ? .... None, Nada, Zip, Niente


Hey Randy, next time you try to introduce the first visible face of a new and confrontational business model you might want to create something that is in some way interesting or enjoyable to see.  My first thought was actually that someone had broken into the WotC site and Fubar'ed your launch.  When I realized that I was looking at the "planned" page ... I was less than impressed.


----------



## molonel (Jun 13, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> No, actually we'll soon have:
> 
> Dragon -> Dragon Online!
> Dungeon -> Dungeon Online!
> ...




Enworld is pretty much a bland name that rolls off the tongue without offending it. The first time I read it, it could best be described with the color grey. Neither particularly attractive, nor particularly silly.

Gleemax is just dumb. It's a M:tG joke. And it's pretty sad when the best they can shoot for is a really stupid name that is supposed to grow on you like mold.

I realize that there are going to be people who defend WotC up until they start slaughtering small children on the lawn, or something similarly indefensible, but come on. Cancelling Dragon and Dungeon the way they did, and then this?

I love when you click on the "Gleemax Speaks" link and receive the following:

http://gleemax.com/articles/speaks002.html

-

Tue, June 5 
PROCEEDING AS PLANNED 

THE PIXSW50ZXJlc3RpbmEL PROcgb2JzZXJ2YXRpb25JECT IS PROCEEDINzIHdpdGggXCJPcGVyG AS PLANYXRpb24gUG9wcHljb2NNED. I AM AWrXCIgZnJvbSB0aGlzIHZARE OF THE FACTIOpZGVvIHByYWN0aXRNS ALpb25lciBvZiB1IGNED AGAINbnVzdWFsIHByST ME. YOU ARE ON MY RAYW5rcw0KDQo=DAR. 

ERROR CODE 64^$64. BEGINNING PHYSICAL MEMORY SCAN>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 

-

Oh, that's just all kinds of heartening.



			
				Aeolius said:
			
		

> Agreed. I actively avoided anything with the name Gleemax at wizards.com, simply because I couldn't take the name seriously. I would have much preferred "Flumphy-poo".




I might have preferred that, as well.

But hey! At least they gave us a Flickr account, right?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/8548923@N08/



			
				Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> First they picked a name that only has meaning to insiders and one particular game (and only to the hardcore players who bought Unhinged) and additionally opens itself to ridicule. Why not pick a name that can be understood and embraced by all gamers if this is supposed to be a site for all gamers.




Exactly.



			
				Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> Lastly they also take this temporary website and skin it in the worst way possible. As harsh as it sounds radioactive cat urine is a fairly acurate description of the impression given. The color combination alone is siomething that will turn off alot a people stopping by to check it out for the first time. Once more this is supposed to be about all gamers but instead they skin it in color combinations that will turn away many otherwise interested people.




You know, I hadn't actually taken the time to look at their color scheme, but I just did, and wow. Radioactive cat urine is right.


----------



## The Green Adam (Jun 13, 2007)

I come to EN World for a lot of reasons...people, the subject matter, the interface...IMHO and with no desire to cause trouble, I've always felt RPGnet to be a bit too pretencious and WotC Boards a bit too mainstream. The really creative ideas seem to pop up here.

That said, after reading the press release once or twice, my opinion is...huh? I'm not entirely sure what they have in mind. More specifically I'm not sure what about it is about Gleemax that is supposed to make me want to go there, other then to find out what it is that's supposed to make me want go there. :\


----------



## Merkuri (Jun 13, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> Tue, June 5
> PROCEEDING AS PLANNED
> 
> THE PIXSW50ZXJlc3RpbmEL PROcgb2JzZXJ2YXRpb25JECT IS PROCEEDINzIHdpdGggXCJPcGVyG AS PLANYXRpb24gUG9wcHljb2NNED. I AM AWrXCIgZnJvbSB0aGlzIHZARE OF THE FACTIOpZGVvIHByYWN0aXRNS ALpb25lciBvZiB1IGNED AGAINbnVzdWFsIHByST ME. YOU ARE ON MY RAYW5rcw0KDQo=DAR.
> ...




That's part of a game they were using to introduce Gleemax that started with a bunch of people being sent foam brains in the mail with a code on them.  The extra characters are a code that sends you further down the game trail.  That part's been solved by people chatting in the Gleemax part of the WotC boards.


----------



## The Green Adam (Jun 13, 2007)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> Gleemax sounds like some kind of sexual protective device.
> 
> "Man, I woulda gotten laid last night, but she had her Gleemax on!"




Yeah I would think the opposite. 

"Don't double her pleasure - set it to overload with new _GLEEMAX!_ For MAXIMUM GLEE!


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 13, 2007)

Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> Heh.  Stupid name, and yet another doomed attempt to 'get down' with what the kids R doing these days.




-Hyp.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Jun 13, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> BECAUSE GLEEMAX COMMANDS YOU TO!




The Computer says Gleemax is a Commie. The Computer is your friend.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Jun 13, 2007)

I can't get excited about the stupidity of the name. Google, Yahoo, YouTube, eBay, Wikipedia, Amazon (what's the relationship to selling books? all the trees in the Amazon Basin cut down for pulp? awesome) . . . unlikely names become big successes.


----------



## molonel (Jun 13, 2007)

Merkuri said:
			
		

> That's part of a game they were using to introduce Gleemax that started with a bunch of people being sent foam brains in the mail with a code on them. The extra characters are a code that sends you further down the game trail. That part's been solved by people chatting in the Gleemax part of the WotC boards.




*shrug*

I guess I wasn't on the foam brain mailing list.


----------



## Maggan (Jun 13, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> I realize that there are going to be people who defend WotC up until they start slaughtering small children on the lawn, or something similarly indefensible, but come on. Cancelling Dragon and Dungeon the way they did, and then this?




I wasn't very upset about the cancellation of Dungeon and Dragon, and I'm not in the least upset about WotC launching another product in their portfolio.

I'm waiting for the Digital Intiative for D&D, and I fail to be bothered by Gleemax. It hasn't changed my life to the worse. Nor to the  better, I guess.

/M


----------



## Klaus (Jun 13, 2007)

"Gleemax"?

I mean, seriously, "Gleemax"?

Don't they have marketing people?







"Gleemax"? Really?


----------



## Maggan (Jun 13, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> "Gleemax"?
> 
> I mean, seriously, "Gleemax"?
> 
> Don't they have marketing people?




Probably. And since the name is widely debated, and has lodged itself in my brain, I guess that they even have shrewd marketers.

Creating and/or assigning names for new services, products and/or even companies is very, very difficult. I've done it a few times, and the amount of work that goes into finding a name that people agree upon that is not already taken is staggering.

EDIT: I'll amend my post saying that finding names can be very difficult. Sometimes it's very simple, but that's more the exception than the norm.

/M


----------



## Mark Hope (Jun 13, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> >_awesomely funny picture_<
> -Hyp.



Thankyou so much


----------



## Khairn (Jun 13, 2007)

Maggan said:
			
		

> I'm waiting for the Digital Intiative for D&D, and I fail to be bothered by Gleemax.
> 
> /M




The way I read it, there is no actual "DI" for D&D alone.  The DI is an all-encompassing business model meant to drive all WotC's gaming support through a common internet based interface.  There may be some content and a few programs that are unique to D&D, but no solely D&D DI.  And the first DI product that has been launched is Gleemax which will be the community interface.

So at least part 1 of the DI has arrived.


----------



## D.Shaffer (Jun 13, 2007)

For everyone complaining about the name...well it IS lodged in your brain now, isnt it? I'm beginning to think they purposely picked it because it IS such a silly name.  People made fun of 'Wii', but the name did its job of getting people to remember it. 

Note, btw, it's not a M:TG ref.  The M:TG card is ITSELF a reference to the joke. Gleemax was around before the card ever showed up.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Jun 13, 2007)

I for one am pretty excited about this. I think it could be pretty darn cool, and I look forward to the social networking opportunities it provides. I totally agree with WotC's rationale: our hobby is very, very community oriented, and communities are built very differently these days than they were 5, 10, or 20 years ago. [disclaimer below]

As for the OP's concerns, I don't imagine this being especially competitive for ENworld. WotC's mandate is to serve a broad community; ENworld's niche is to serve a narrower slice of more deeply invested gamers. If Gleemax were a threat to ENworld, ENworld would already be threatened by WotC's D&D message boards, which currently get something line 10x the traffic ENworld gets. (And I for one will not stop visiting ENworld every day, even when I have my full-fledged Gleemax account.)

[Disclaimer: This is all new to me; I know nothing more about Gleemax than anyone else here. This is, I think, the very first major initiative from WotC that wasn't under way or being discussed when I was at the company, so I have no preconceptions or insider knowledge.]


----------



## Nifft (Jun 13, 2007)

CharlesRyan said:
			
		

> As for the OP's concerns, I don't imagine this being especially competitive for ENworld. WotC's mandate is to serve a broad community; ENworld's niche is to serve a narrower slice of more deeply invested gamers.




Bingo.

Cue *Crothian*'s quote about WotC's target audience. 

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Klaus (Jun 13, 2007)

Maggan said:
			
		

> Probably. And since the name is widely debated, and has lodged itself in my brain, I guess that they even have shrewd marketers.
> 
> Creating and/or assigning names for new services, products and/or even companies is very, very difficult. I've done it a few times, and the amount of work that goes into finding a name that people agree upon that is not already taken is staggering.
> 
> ...



 Klaus = award-winning Advertising Art Director and Copywriter for 10 years (okay, Award-Winning is only 8 years...  ).

Negative attention isn't always desireable, regardless of what Mick Jagger once said. Specially since "Gleemax" is an in-joke to a piece of your demographic that you already have won over.


----------



## Maggan (Jun 13, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Klaus = award-winning Advertising Art Director and Copywriter for 10 years (okay, Award-Winning is only 8 years...  ).




Great. And ditto on the copywriter thing, although I'm just a lowly Creative Director nowadays, victim to the whims of Art Directors and Project Managers.

I just think that at least judging from my experience in advertising and communication, it's a hell of a lot easier to slam a name, than to come up with one.

And I don't see anything that automatically makes Gleemax a bad name for the service. For some people, sure. But that's the case with any name you come up with. And if the Magic crowd loves it, that's a strong plus for the name.

It could be bad, it's just that I'm not prepared to carpet bomb the marketing at WotC, because I simply don't know what process they've been through and what data they have.

/M


----------



## Schmoe (Jun 13, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Klaus = award-winning Advertising Art Director and Copywriter for 10 years (okay, Award-Winning is only 8 years...  ).
> 
> Negative attention isn't always desireable, regardless of what Mick Jagger once said. Specially since "Gleemax" is an in-joke to a piece of your demographic that you already have won over.





There's no such thing as bad press...


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 13, 2007)

Schmoe said:
			
		

> There's no such thing as bad press...



Heh, that is so not true.


----------



## Mike_Lescault (Jun 13, 2007)

Regarding the name, I agree with many here. It's a name. It's a fine name. Eventually, people will associate Gleemax with whatever they perceive gleemax to be, and by even next week I think most people will be ambivilent about it. I've tried to encourge people not to waste their ammo on the name, since it almost seems like a feint, and I think there are more legitimate topics for the community to discuss and make their voice heard on.

As far as what the Digital Initiative is, we've done a terrible job of making that clear. And I think a lot of it is my fault. I can even say that WotC D&D folks, like Scott Rouse and Chris Perkins, expressed concern about refering to what we're doing with D&D as the D&D DI, so I can't say I wasn't warned.

So here it is: WotC has a Digital Initiative. Gleemax is going to be the home for gamers. RPG, TCG, BG, Minis, you name it. It should be the place for anyone interested in anything to do with any tabletop or strategy game to come and find what they want. It could be people who can describe that game, extra content for that game, people to discuss that game with, people to play that game with, it could suggestions on what other games they may like, even links to other sites, etc. As part of this, Gleemax will have a large amount of features and tools to help facilitate the community.

D&D also has plans in the digital space. These are brand specific but will certainly be supported by a lot of the basic Gleemax functionality. We haven't released a lot of details on the D&D DI because we expect to make some big announcements when we're ready. I can't say when those announcements will happen. I will continue trying to wheedle out the bits of information I can from the D&D folks, but it's extra hard at this time of year, with all the preparations they're making for Gencon, which has always been a pretty big deal for WotC and D&D.

edit: Changed their to they're and strategic to strategy (strategiary)


----------



## crazy_monkey1956 (Jun 13, 2007)

Implication and assumption from Mike's comments above: D&D DI will have a major announcement at Gencon.


----------



## Mercule (Jun 13, 2007)

Mike, could you make it clear who you are, please?  You are apparently somehow associated with WotC, but I don't recognize your name -- probably because D&D and (to an extent) DDM are my only hobby gaming activities.

I've been very interested in hearing about the DI, especially what will be available for D&D as part of the offering.  I would even say that I was cautiously optimistic about the cancellation of Dragon and Dungeon because of what it implied for the DI/D&D's online presence.

That said, I'm still stunned at how bad the name Gleemax sounds.  Even when reading you post above, it was jarring and comical to see the name.  Yes, the name will eventually take on meaning based on the content and features of the site and brand.  It's still not a positive name.  Really, a name like smurfpoop.com could end up turning into a great brand, but the name itself would always be... unfortunate.


----------



## Mike_Lescault (Jun 13, 2007)

Mercule said:
			
		

> Mike, could you make it clear who you are, please?  You are apparently somehow associated with WotC, but I don't recognize your name -- probably because D&D and (to an extent) DDM are my only hobby gaming activities.





Sorry about that. I try to play it low key and just slip in and answer questions. Unfortunately, that didn't work on boardgamegeek.com where they threw me off for answering questions about Gleemax, because they considered it "advertising" the "competition."

I added a sig here.

edit: changed BGG to the full name, and noted self to stop assuming people know this stuff.


----------



## Schmoe (Jun 13, 2007)

And for those who have .sigs turned off (like me), Mike is the WotC Online Community Liaison.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 13, 2007)

*runs off to register smurfpoop.com*


----------



## crazy_monkey1956 (Jun 13, 2007)

Forgive the ignorance, but what is BGG?


----------



## Zaruthustran (Jun 13, 2007)

So the name is bad, and the Gleemax "personality" is at best goofy, and at worst insulting. 

Moving on...

What about the actual purpose/content of the site? 

I'm cautiously optimistic. I think a game-focused site with Myspace-like interconnectivity and Doodle-like scheduling capability would be very useful. And over and above those specific examples, I'm delighted that WotC is finally devoting real resources to the online community, for two reasons.  

One, it shows that WotC is in touch with the reality of the modern gamer. We've all moved out of the local game store/local con and onto the Internet. *This* is where we share characters and stories, discuss issues, debate rules, evaluate products, enthuse about geek culture, and hang out. As someone who wants WotC Inc. to succeed and grow, their bold move into this space reassures me.

Two, I could really use those resources. Sure I'd feel a little silly typing in the URL, but if the services are good enough I'll get over myself. It's worth a tiny bit of embarrassment if Gleemax enables me to easily connect with my game group, schedule games, and track characters and the campaign. 

Bottom line is that Gleemax is a Good Thing for all of us, both because it presents useful services and because it demonstrates WotC's commitment to the online gaming community.

-z


----------



## Zaruthustran (Jun 13, 2007)

Mike_Lescault said:
			
		

> Sorry about that. I try to play it low key and just slip in and answer questions. Unfortunately, that didn't work on BGG where they threw me off for answering questions about Gleemax, because they considered it "advertising" the "competition."
> 
> I added a sig here.




Welcome, Mike! May I humbly suggest you get a Community Supporter account, what for so you can change the little bit of text under your name from "Registered User" to something like "WotC Online Communities Manager". 

Many people gloss over sigs--or disable them entirely--so adding your title right under your forum name would do wonders for your visibility and therefore the effectiveness of your official communications. 

-z


----------



## Crothian (Jun 13, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Bingo.
> 
> Cue *Crothian*'s quote about WotC's target audience.
> 
> Cheers, -- N




Wow, I'm getting cue's now!!


----------



## Mike_Lescault (Jun 13, 2007)

Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> Welcome, Mike! May I humbly suggest you get a Community Supporter account, what for so you can change the little bit of text under your name from "Registered User" to something like "WotC Online Communities Manager".




Oh. And yes, I signed up as a community supporter when the thread went up asking for support. Let me see if I can figure out how to set it.


----------



## Crothian (Jun 13, 2007)

Mike_Lescault said:
			
		

> Oh. And yes, I signed up as a community supporter when the thread went up asking for support. Let me see if I can figure out how to set it.




Goto My Account and it is under Edit Profile if you can't figure it out


----------



## sjmiller (Jun 13, 2007)

Mike, is there any way to tell whoever is in charge of that website that the color choices are nothing short of horrid?  Plus the look of the site makes me think it has something to do with a kids online sci-fi game.  Nothing there makes me think it's the be-all-end-all place to be for the type of gaming I do.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 13, 2007)

crazypixie said:
			
		

> Forgive the ignorance, but what is BGG?



Board Game Geek, a Web site.


----------



## Mercule (Jun 13, 2007)

Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> What about the actual purpose/content of the site?
> 
> I'm cautiously optimistic. I think a game-focused site with Myspace-like interconnectivity and Doodle-like scheduling capability would be very useful. And over and above those specific examples, I'm delighted that WotC is finally devoting real resources to the online community, for two reasons.
> 
> ...




This is all true.  I'm really bummed about the URL and hope it eventually "migrates" somewhere else.  Still, I do like what I hear about plans for content.


----------



## carmachu (Jun 13, 2007)

Maggan said:
			
		

> And I don't see anything that automatically makes Gleemax a bad name for the service. For some people, sure. But that's the case with any name you come up with. And if the Magic crowd loves it, that's a strong plus for the name.
> 
> It could be bad, it's just that I'm not prepared to carpet bomb the marketing at WotC, because I simply don't know what process they've been through and what data they have.




Try looking at it this way:

You use an injoke name that the already won over M:TG crowd likes.....but its looking like its not hleping your cause with the RPG crowd, who you've already pissed off a good segment with your announcement of Dragon and Dungeon. Which has been promised something "REALLY REALLY COOL!!!!!" but they cant talk about......

You already have negative press, and release something that looks like horse vomit so far....WotC isnt exactly batting a thousand here with the RPG crowd. While its nice they want a larger audience....throwing us a bone would have been better....


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 13, 2007)

The D&D counterpart to Gleemax will be called Meepo and all will thus be forgiven.


----------



## Merkuri (Jun 13, 2007)

Hmm, out of curiosity, would people be more accepting of the name if it sounded like "Gleemax" but wasn't spelled so obviously?  Like "Gleamix"?  Or "Gliimex"?  Just wondering if there's a possible way to keep the history of the name without having it look like something that's not safe for work.

Disclaimer: I have nothing to do with WotC and just came up with an idea.  I have no authority whatsoever to actually change the name.  And somehow I doubt they'd change it regardless, since they trademarked it and everything.  Who knows, though.


----------



## D.Shaffer (Jun 13, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> The D&D counterpart to Gleemax will be called Meepo and all will thus be forgiven.



Of course, if they DID call it Meepo, people on non DND sites would be saying the exact same thing I'm seeing here.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Jun 13, 2007)

Mike, 

Glad to see you here and glad to know that we are being listened to. I don't think you have to be worried about being kicked off of here for advertising.

Something I posted over at the Gleemax site but deserves repeating here. Right now WotC has announced this cool new concept. Lots of people seem to be onboard with the concept. What is happening now though is that people are going over there to check things out (even knowing that full functionallity and implementation are not done) What they find however is one giant ARG that has appsolutely nothing to do with the final concept. There are only two forums as well. One is reply only and for anouncements, the other is a nightmare of a place that is solely about the ARG and full of people who complain when newbies stop by looking for the future concept. 

There really needs to be at least a third forum set up over there dedicated to the future of Gleemax and not the the ARG at all. This is not to say that the game can't continue but that now that the announcemment is out at least something has to be done over there to welcome all the new people who were "invited" to be part of this new community.

It was anounced over there by Randy that starting next week there would be daily entries of various kinds to help promote the future design. Before then, and hopefully today still the administrator will at least set up a temporary forum for all the new people to post in. I want this to be a success as well but right now in the first few days people are comming away upset rather than encouraged by what they see.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Jun 13, 2007)

D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> Of course, if they DID call it Meepo, people on non DND sites would be saying the exact same thing I'm seeing here.




And the ridicule would be even worse. Me Poo, now that is just grosse.


----------



## Mortellan (Jun 13, 2007)

I'm still not feeling it. I guess it'll have to wait till after gencon when the answers are more clear.


----------



## Mike_Lescault (Jun 13, 2007)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> Something I posted over at the Gleemax site but deserves repeating here. Right now WotC has announced this cool new concept. Lots of people seem to be onboard with the concept. What is happening now though is that people are going over there to check things out (even knowing that full functionallity and implementation are not done) What they find however is one giant ARG that has appsolutely nothing to do with the final concept. There are only two forums as well. One is reply only and for anouncements, the other is a nightmare of a place that is solely about the ARG and full of people who complain when newbies stop by looking for the future concept.




In our 8:30 meeting this morning, this was raised by several people, most of whom I suspect saw your post on our forums about. It's definitely something that needs to happen, and we're working on adding more forums. Not sure how quickly we can get them up, but we'll see.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Jun 13, 2007)

Thanks Mike, Good to hear.


----------



## trancejeremy (Jun 13, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Heh, that is so not true.




Yeah, tell that to Sony. Pretty much every day, there is bad news about them. I think they would be very happy with no news


----------



## Jakar (Jun 13, 2007)

I really do not have a problem with the name.  We have a PDF printing company called Lulu, so I do not think Gleemax is all that bad really.


----------



## Klaus (Jun 13, 2007)

Maggan said:
			
		

> Great. And ditto on the copywriter thing, although I'm just a lowly Creative Director nowadays, victim to the whims of Art Directors and Project Managers.
> 
> I just think that at least judging from my experience in advertising and communication, it's a hell of a lot easier to slam a name, than to come up with one.
> 
> ...



 I can think of *one* reason why the name is a bad name (and one is all it takes):

You hear the name and don't immediately understand what it's about.

As I'm sure you know (being a fellow advertising professional... we must stand united!), when you get a job to come up with a name, the client lists a series of "images" and "feelings" that the name must convey. It must be "hip", or imply "hi-tech", or something. All that with a logo, too.


----------



## GlassJaw (Jun 14, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> I can think of *one* reason why the name is a bad name (and one is all it takes):
> 
> You hear the name and don't immediately understand what it's about.




If this is what you are basing your opinion of Gleemax on, then just come out and say you want to WotC-bash, because this statement is utterly ridiculous.

I can name TONS of product/company/website names that have nothing to do with the actual product or content.

By that argument, what the frak does EN World mean?  Or Pepsi?  Or Hyundai?  Or Amazon and eBay?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 14, 2007)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> By that argument, what the frak does EN World mean?  Or Pepsi?  Or Hyundai?  Or Amazon and eBay?



All of which are companies, not products.

When you hear "Extreme Beef & Cheese Quesadilla," you may not know what makes it "extreme," but you have a good guess at what the actual product is. Ditto "Diet Coke," although it requires you to know what a "Coke" is -- the word "diet" suggests it's a low-calorie food product, though.

"Gleemax" contains no clues as to its meaning. Now, that sort of "the uninitiated don't know what it is" can work sometimes, but it really depends on the product. The question is whether the Gleemax platform is all about creating a large audience for WotC products (which would suggest a name that's self-explanatory would be good) or whether it's all about getting all the gamers to feel like they're part of an exclusive club (in which case the in-joke serves to keep out the filthy, filthy mundanes).


----------



## MerricB (Jun 14, 2007)

Mike_Lescault said:
			
		

> Sorry about that. I try to play it low key and just slip in and answer questions. Unfortunately, that didn't work on boardgamegeek.com where they threw me off for answering questions about Gleemax, because they considered it "advertising" the "competition."




Rather poor form of them, I think.

I think BGG is a great, great site... but I'm not happy with that decision of theirs.

Cheers,
Merric


----------



## Mercule (Jun 14, 2007)

Mike_Lescault said:
			
		

> In our 8:30 meeting this morning, this was raised by several people, most of whom I suspect saw your post on our forums about. It's definitely something that needs to happen, and we're working on adding more forums. Not sure how quickly we can get them up, but we'll see.




It great to know there are discussions going on about some of the details.  I know some of the comments (including mine) are coming off really harsh.  Such is the nature of the Internet and instant communication.  It doesn't mean we aren't pulling for WotC to make this DI thing work -- speaking for myself, I certainly want to see something great come out of this.  

That's actually where some of my forcefulness comes from.  If this was a GURPS/SJG thing, I'd chuckle at the name and dismiss it because I'm not invested there.  So, my comments on the name stand (I think it's really, really bad), but hopefully you can take them in the spirit given.

Now, what is an "ARG"?


----------



## Zaruthustran (Jun 14, 2007)

ARG is alternate reality game. See "i love bees", "the LOST experience", "lonelygirl", and the like.

Essentially they're puzzles (communicated via phone, email, SMS, IM, and the web) that immerse the player in the mythology of a product and reveal backstory. 

-z


----------



## Klaus (Jun 14, 2007)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> If this is what you are basing your opinion of Gleemax on, then just come out and say you want to WotC-bash, because this statement is utterly ridiculous.
> 
> I can name TONS of product/company/website names that have nothing to do with the actual product or content.
> 
> By that argument, what the frak does EN World mean?  Or Pepsi?  Or Hyundai?  Or Amazon and eBay?



 No.

I actually never said anything about Gleemax's content. The only opinion I expressed was about the name. The product as described sounds a bit interesting, even if it isn't well explained so far. The product may be great or it may suck. But it is still a bad name. That is my opinion, which is based on my extensive background in marketing and advertising. So chill.

I have defended WotC far more often than I have criticized it, and I dare you to find any thread in this site or any other where I "bash" anything. Criticizing, sure, and always giving my reasons for it. But "teh suxxorz" bashing? Not my thing.

Unless it's Cherry Coke. Cherry Coke is teh suxxorz!


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Jun 14, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Cherry Coke is teh suxxorz!



We are of one mind.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 14, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Unless it's Cherry Coke. Cherry Coke is teh suxxorz!



Gleemax says you must die.


----------



## Mike_Lescault (Jun 14, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Rather poor form of them, I think.
> 
> I think BGG is a great, great site... but I'm not happy with that decision of theirs.




I had listed BGG, En World, and Star City in my GRZ blog that's going up tomorrow, as examples of the great community sites that I visit each morning to get my gaming news. I was originally going to leave BGG off after that incident, but I eventually convinced myself it's better to take the high road since it really is a great site.


----------



## MerricB (Jun 14, 2007)

Mike_Lescault said:
			
		

> I had listed BGG, En World, and Star City in my GRZ blog that's going up tomorrow, as examples of the great community sites that I visit each morning to get my gaming news. I was originally going to leave BGG off after that incident, but I eventually convinced myself it's better to take the high road since it really is a great site.




I'm still a little amazed by their actions.

When I was lead moderator of maxminis, I took a very dim view of people starting threads about the great new site that they wanted everyone to leave maxminis and join... but answering questions in a thread started by someone else? That seems fine to me. 

I read a few of your replies before the purge and they seemed unobjectionable.

In any case: Congratulations on your new job, Mike. I've been reading your posts here and there, and I'm very happy to see you posting. I hope things calm down soon, and you can really enjoy interacting with the fans. 

Cheers!


----------



## Mark CMG (Jun 14, 2007)

Odd.  I understand that new site with the green brain will actually encourage people to promote their gaming websites.


----------



## Mike_Lescault (Jun 14, 2007)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> Odd.  I understand that new site with the green brain will actually encourage people to promote their gaming websites.




What's that phrase? All boats rise when the tide is high? Or something... =)


----------



## GlassJaw (Jun 14, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> All of which are companies, not products.




So what?  Gleemax (and Amazon and ebay, etc) aren't techically products at all, they are services.

But seriously, this argument is lame.  You don't like the name, fine.  But to say it's bad just because it doesn't give insight to what it actually is completely without merit.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 14, 2007)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> So what?  Gleemax (and Amazon and ebay, etc) aren't techically products at all, they are services.



Amazon and eBay are companies.



> But seriously, this argument is lame.  You don't like the name, fine.  But to say it's bad just because it doesn't give insight to what it actually is completely without merit.



No, it's in line with pretty standard marketing and PR strategies that a name should, you know, tell you something relevant most of the time.

You can dislike the argument, but it's not without merit at all. I'm certain WotC went round and round about this very issue in-house before the announcement.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 14, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> As I'm sure you know (being a fellow advertising professional... we must stand united!), when you get a job to come up with a name, the client lists a series of "images" and "feelings" that the name must convey. It must be "hip", or imply "hi-tech", or something. All that with a logo, too.




Hey, Klaus - what would _your_ logo for the London Olympics look like?  

-Hyp.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 14, 2007)

Noticed this over on the Wizards site...it's in the usage terms of Gleemax, and I was wondering if anyone with a better understanding of legal-speak could explain this...



			
				WotC Boards said:
			
		

> -----------------------
> Ownership of Intellectual Property and Restrictions on Use of Materials
> The materials available through this Site are the property of Wizards and/or its subsidiaries, affiliates, licensors, licensees, or other respective owners. These materials are protected by copyright, trademark, and other intellectual property laws. Information received through this Site may be displayed, reformatted, and printed for your personal, noncommercial use only. You may not reproduce or retransmit the materials, in whole or in part, in any manner, without the prior written consent of the owner of such materials, with these exceptions only:
> 
> ...




Do you or don't you own what you post publicly?


----------



## ssampier (Jun 14, 2007)

*Glee to the MAX*

Not a competitor to EnWorld.

I think we should setup a social networking site for the EnWorld crowd and call it Hivemind or better yet, IntelliFilter.


----------



## Mark CMG (Jun 14, 2007)

Mike_Lescault said:
			
		

> What's that phrase? All boats rise when the tide is high? Or something... =)





I believe it is, "Rising formaldehyde lifts all brains (in the jar)."


----------



## Rogue765 (Jun 14, 2007)

crazypixie said:
			
		

> Hi Mike...
> 
> Perhaps you can answer the burning question of the hour...what's with the name "Gleemax"?




It was the only 7 letter DOT COM site that wasn't already taken.


----------



## pedr (Jun 14, 2007)

Imaro, that's probably the conditions of use for the current Wizards of the Coast boards. I've not read it in detail, partly because it's probably a red herring. Gleemax is going to need different operating parameters from the boards - among other things, the promotion of non-WotC stuff isn't allowed on the boards AFAIK, so Gleemax will need to have a different set of rules.

I imagine that Gleemax will have similar legalese to myspace, which whether or not its perfect, clearly doesn't interfere with musical artists rights to the point where record companies aren't comfortable that the artists retain enough rights to license or pass on to the record label.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 14, 2007)

> No, it's in line with pretty standard marketing and PR strategies that a name should, you know, tell you something relevant most of the time.




AFAICT, this is far from standard. Quite the opposite, actually: the name should be distinctive and different so that you can associate the name purely with your product.

"Tide" tells me nothing about clean clothes. "Trix" tells me nothing about cereal. "Thunderbird" tells me nothing about a car.

"Gleemax" tells me nothing about an online D&D community....yet....


----------



## Maggan (Jun 14, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> You can dislike the argument, but it's not without merit at all.




On the other hand, the practice of coming up with a name that says nothing of the product, and then using advertising and PR to load that name with meaning, is as valid as the one Klaus is talking about.

See for example the rise of the iPod, the Nintendo Wii, the Zune, and many, many more.



> I'm certain WotC went round and round about this very issue in-house before the announcement.




I agree that's a likely scenario.

/M


----------



## Hussar (Jun 14, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> AFAICT, this is far from standard. Quite the opposite, actually: the name should be distinctive and different so that you can associate the name purely with your product.
> 
> "Tide" tells me nothing about clean clothes. "Trix" tells me nothing about cereal. "Thunderbird" tells me nothing about a car.
> 
> "Gleemax" tells me nothing about an online D&D community....yet....




Y'know you've been spending too much time online when Thunderbird means internet browser before car.


----------



## Cam Banks (Jun 14, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Y'know you've been spending too much time online when Thunderbird means internet browser before car.




I always think of our boys at International Rescue, myself.

F.A.B.,
Cam


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Jun 14, 2007)

Dav said:
			
		

> Actually, "Google" isn't a word, even a mathematical one. You're thinking of "googol," which is 10^100. Supposedly the founders of "Google" meant to use "googol," but misspelled it. That doesn't say much for their spelling skills.




They wouldn't be able to copy write googol, so i don't think google was a mistake. You will find many brand names misspellings of actual words so they can copy write the spelling of their new word.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Jun 14, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> AFAICT, this is far from standard. Quite the opposite, actually: the name should be distinctive and different so that you can associate the name purely with your product.
> 
> "Tide" tells me nothing about clean clothes. "Trix" tells me nothing about cereal. "Thunderbird" tells me nothing about a car.
> 
> "Gleemax" tells me nothing about an online D&D community....yet....





I think the first name to start this trend was Kodak. That name was unrelated to anything and thus it has a good foundation to build a reputation. Now whenever we think of Kodak we think of exactly what Eastman wants us to think. the name has no outside meaning. Eastman invented this type of naming convention and now its a standard.

Gleemax fails though in one respect. We can derive meanings from the name Glee and Max to give us a poor disposition. wtc should have gone with something more vague.


----------



## Klaus (Jun 14, 2007)

Tide -> sea -> water -> washing -> clean -> clean clothes.

Trix -> "tricks" -> tricks or treats -> sweets -> made even more jovial by replacing "cks" with "x"

Thunderbird -> mythological american bird -> swiftness and power = good image for a car.

Kodak -> onomatopoeia of the sound a camera makes.


----------



## Klaus (Jun 14, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Hey, Klaus - what would _your_ logo for the London Olympics look like?
> 
> -Hyp.



 Hire me and I'll show you!


----------



## Hussar (Jun 14, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Kodak -> onomatopoeia of the sound a camera makes




Sorry, that answer is incorrect:



			
				wikipedia said:
			
		

> He and his mother devised the name Kodak with an anagram set. He said that there were three principal concepts he used in creating the name : it must be short, you can not mispronounce it, and it could not resemble anything or be associated with anything but Kodak.




So, Kodak is pretty much precisely what people are saying - a made up word that only means what we think now.  Kind of like Exxon.  Or Absolut.  Or Kleenex.  Or a bazillion other brand names that have pretty much nothing to do with the product they belong to.

I'm still wondering what a Mozilla is or how Apple relates to computers.  Microsoft I would buy, but Turbine?


----------



## Aeolius (Jun 14, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> ... a made up word that only means what we think now.  Kind of like Exxon.




Exxon means "The company that used to be Esso"


----------



## Mercule (Jun 14, 2007)

Moon-Lancer said:
			
		

> Gleemax fails though in one respect. We can derive meanings from the name Glee and Max to give us a poor disposition. wtc should have gone with something more vague.




This is more where I'm coming from.  Even more, the jokes that come out of "glee" and "max" tend toward being a bit blue.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 14, 2007)

Aeolius said:
			
		

> Exxon means "The company that used to be Esso"




And it also means "legally distinct from anything recognizable as Standard Oil". Esso = SO. 

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Maggan (Jun 14, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> So, Kodak is pretty much precisely what people are saying - a made up word that only means what we think now.  Kind of like Exxon.  Or Absolut.  Or Kleenex.  Or a bazillion other brand names that have pretty much nothing to do with the product they belong to.




While I totally agree with your post, "Absolut" is not a made up word. It's the Swedish word for "absolute", and the brand Absolut Vodka originated from Sweden.

Just a nitpick, really.   

/M


----------



## Klaus (Jun 14, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Sorry, that answer is incorrect:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 Apple Macintosh -> Macintosh type of apples.

My version of Kodak was taught to me in college by a photography professor with 30 years of experience. I think I'll take his word over Wikipedia.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 14, 2007)

> Apple Macintosh -> Macintosh type of apples.




True.  Thank you for that.  But, what exactly does a Macintosh have to do with computing?

Heh, did a bit of digging.  No offense to your prof, but, the Kodak site says the following:



> Today, company advertising appears around the world and the trademark "Kodak," coined by Eastman himself, is familiar to nearly everyone.
> 
> The word "Kodak" was first registered as a trademark in 1888. There has been some fanciful speculation, from time to time, on how the name was originated. But the plain truth is that Eastman invented it out of thin air.
> 
> He explained: "I devised the name myself. The letter "K" had been a favorite with me -- it seems a strong, incisive sort of letter. It became a question of trying out a great number of combinations of letters that made words starting and ending with 'K.' The word 'Kodak' is the result." Kodak's distinctive yellow trade dress, which Eastman selected, is widely known throughout the world and is one of the company's more valued assets.




 From http://www.kodak.com/global/en/corp/historyOfKodak/eastmanTheMan.jhtml


----------



## crazy_monkey1956 (Jun 14, 2007)

Just thought I'd pipe in with...

Gleemax has new forums up, including a general games discussion forum.  One of the first threads is one started by Mike about under-rated RPGs.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Jun 14, 2007)

Beat me too it.

Thanks Mike, Randy, and other WotC folks for listening.


----------



## Mike_Lescault (Jun 14, 2007)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> Thanks Mike, Randy, and other WotC folks for listening.




We also just updated gleemax.com with more information based on the feedback we received from folks in various places, including this thread. So thanks again.


----------



## crazy_cat (Jun 14, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Y'know you've been spending too much time online when Thunderbird means internet browser before car.





			
				Cam Banks said:
			
		

> I always think of our boys at International Rescue, myself.
> 
> F.A.B.,
> Cam



Personally, Thunderbird always reminds me of the incredibly cheap (and ridculously foul tasting, but high % ABV) fortified wine we used to buy when underage drinking in the mid/late 80's. Does that make me a bad person?

*winces as conversation stops and everybody goes quiet and stares*

Sorry, I'll get my coat....


----------



## Winterthorn (Jun 14, 2007)

*Eh...*

I did not read all of the above posts, but I just wanted to give my initial reaction after visiting the gleemax site: 

No, sorry, but it doesn't work for me. Maybe just a matter of taste on my part. The name is... odd. The brain-in-a-jar thing is not what I'd have gone for either.

I'll check it out again in a month or so to see if the new site develops "roots". Somehow I do not see a business venture trying to model a grassroots fan site will work as they want. Exploiting a fan base for marketing? Gee, how original is that?

I remain the skeptical consumer...

PS: yeah, when I see/hear Thunderbird, I too think of Anderson's ol' bobbing-head show... F.A.B.


----------



## Mark CMG (Jun 14, 2007)

Mike_Lescault said:
			
		

> We also just updated gleemax.com with more information based on the feedback we received from folks in various places, including this thread. So thanks again.





Uh oh.  Will the brain be mocking us back?  I do not think I could take it if the brain was mocking us back.  Please do not let the brain mock us back.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 14, 2007)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> Uh oh.  Will the brain be mocking us back?  I do not think I could take it if the brain was mocking us back.  Please do not let the brain mock us back.



Gleemax will deal with you shortly.


----------



## davidschwartznz (Jun 14, 2007)

crazy_cat said:
			
		

> Personally, Thunderbird always reminds me of the incredibly cheap (and ridculously foul tasting, but high % ABV) fortified wine we used to buy when underage drinking in the mid/late 80's. Does that make me a bad person?



The important thing is that no one associates it with a mythological creature anymore. Take that, Native American culture!


----------



## Mark CMG (Jun 14, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Gleemax will deal with you shortly.






hold me


----------



## Nifft (Jun 14, 2007)

Could we change the title to something less provocative?

Perhaps something relatively inoffensive like "*Gleemax HATES Enworld*"?

Thanks, -- N


----------



## PatEllis15 (Jun 14, 2007)

Mike Just wanted to let you know that I finally joined BGG today...  I'm puzzled as well as to why they are being so defensive...  You can think that Gleemax is silly/will fail, and not take it as a personal affront.

If Gleemax does for general gaming what the OGL did, then all the better.  That might be asking for a bit much, but I'll definatley keep my eyes on it!

Pat E


----------



## Khairn (Jun 15, 2007)

PatEllis15 said:
			
		

> Mike Just wanted to let you know that I finally joined BGG today...  I'm puzzled as well as to why they are being so defensive...  You can think that Gleemax is silly/will fail, and not take it as a personal affront.
> 
> If Gleemax does for general gaming what the OGL did, then all the better.  That might be asking for a bit much, but I'll definatley keep my eyes on it!
> 
> Pat E




I guess that if your site is trying to be a home for a niche group of gamers (niche of a niche) and you see WotC announcing that they are now trying to gather all gamers under 1 (Gleemax) banner, then I can easily understand why they are defensive.

Do you expect Warhammer (Games Workshop) or Warmachine (Privateer Press) to embrace and encourage their mini's players to use "Gleemax" because WotC is designing it to be the "Gamers Home" ?  Hell no.  

Gleemax, and the rest of the DI is a new front in the war for your gaming $.  What will be interesting is if once the price structure and content for the DI is announced to see if there is any competition.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Jun 15, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I'm still wondering what a Mozilla




NCSA Mosaic Web browser => Became netscape => Code released by AOL => Mutated by Open Source radiation => Mozilla (Like Godzilla) 100 foot monster attacking Redmond.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> is or how Apple relates to computers.




Computers => Innovation/Science => Issac Newton => "Newton's Apple"


----------



## Mike_Lescault (Jun 15, 2007)

Devyn said:
			
		

> I guess that if your site is trying to be a home for a niche group of gamers (niche of a niche) and you see WotC announcing that they are now trying to gather all gamers under 1 (Gleemax) banner, then I can easily understand why they are defensive.




We've been promoting the discussion of other games and I made it a point in my blog to mention a few key community sites. Our goal is to grow the industry as a whole, not steal people from other sites.


----------



## PatEllis15 (Jun 15, 2007)

Devyn said:
			
		

> Do you expect Warhammer (Games Workshop) or Warmachine (Privateer Press) to embrace and encourage their mini's players to use "Gleemax" because WotC is designing it to be the "Gamers Home" ?  Hell no.
> 
> Gleemax, and the rest of the DI is a new front in the war for your gaming $.  What will be interesting is if once the price structure and content for the DI is announced to see if there is any competition.




Well, BGG doesn't publish any games, they are a fan site for Board games just like Enworld is for RPG's.

I think that if stores promote their events on Gleemax (which we've been told they will be able to), and as a result a player goes to said store, and buys an previously unseen Board Game, or 40K set, then both BGG and Games Workshop would be happy.

I don't see Gleemax being a paid service (at least it hasn't been described as such), so it wouldn't be draining my gaming dollars.  Just the opposite, since if I see more opportunities to play the games I like, I may end up buming UP my gaming dollars in my budget.

Pat E


----------



## Khairn (Jun 15, 2007)

Mike_Lescault said:
			
		

> We've been promoting the discussion of other games and I made it a point in my blog to mention a few key community sites. Our goal is to grow the industry as a whole, not steal people from other sites.




Mike, I completely understand that , and you did clearly say that in your blog.  But how can WotC's  intent to make Gleemax a "Home for Gamers" not be perceived as competition for sites like BGG and smaller game publishers?

Using game-neutral boards like ENWorld, BGG,  RPG Net or the Forge as a place where gamers and smaller companies can promote, gather, share and grow your niche gaming community is one thing.  But if you are a publisher ... doing all that over on your competitor's home field is certainly less than an exciting opportunity.  Maybe something along the lines of having a BBQ over at a den of wolves.  Just because the wolves invited you, doesn't necessarily mean its a smart idea.

BTW ... the wolf analogy is there for fun, not as a hit.

Again, my point in bringing this up was to say that I easily understand why some sites and some of WotC's competitors may be defensive about the DI and Gleemax's purpose to become the Home of Gamers ... not just WotC gamers, but all gamers.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 15, 2007)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> Computers => Innovation/Science => Issac Newton => "Newton's Apple"




If "innovation and discovery" + "apple" makes you think of Newton, I have more faith in humanity.

Beyond Fruit and Evil, -- N


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 16, 2007)

I think it's natural for established communities to feel somewhat defensive. Banning all discussion of the major player's entry into a segment of the market is an extreme overreaction, though.


----------



## Mike_Lescault (Jun 16, 2007)

Devyn said:
			
		

> Mike, I completely understand that , and you did clearly say that in your blog.  But how can WotC's  intent to make Gleemax a "Home for Gamers" not be perceived as competition for sites like BGG and smaller game publishers?




Well, the internet isn't really about exclusivity. The more people we're able to bring into the hobby will mean the larger pool of folks that will be around to discover other sites, which they'll learn about on Gleemax, and then become members of. 

If you check out the forums that we've set up to support the Gleemax promotion you'll see that we're talking about all the games, the publishers, and the gaming sites we can. One of the coolest parts of our industry is the smaller game publishers, and they're probably the ones who stand to gain the most.


----------



## Sigdel (Jun 16, 2007)

Elodan said:
			
		

> Gleemax?
> 
> All I can think of is the Gleemonex pill that
> 
> ...




I was wondering if someone would pipe in and make the reference. So I guess I don't have to now.


Awwww, what the hell:

DUNK THE DRUG!


----------



## Dragon Snack (Jun 16, 2007)

You know, I really could care less about the name.

It just DOESN'T DO ANYTHING FOR ME.  Sure, it may in the future, but it's just another message board* right now.

With all the "we have 'kewl' things planned for the DI, but we can't tell you" and then the release of this - I don't have much hope.  It seems like there was no plan and they are playing catch up by implementing user suggestions after the fact (the legalese posted above only serves to reinforce my opinion).

Why should I have to wait to see it become something 'new' and 'different'?  It should have had at least partial functionality from day one.  I can understand wanting to put something out there and improve on it, but it just came off as putting nothing out there and then patching stuff onto it.  That makes me fear what the end result will look like, some sort of hogde-pogde of disparate ideas cobbled together into some Franken-site like monstrosity.  Not that it's far from that right now, the poor color scheme is just one more nail in it for me.

Let's not even start about everything being run by WotC.  This is a company that doesn't allow people to talk about their own novels because people 'insulted' the authors (plus the intermittent banning of whatever the 'issue of the week' is).  If this is supposed to be some sort of all inclusive, talk about anything, gathering ground for gamers, banning stuff isn't going to be very conducive to the stated goals of the site.  Does WotC have the stomach to endure the grit that is sure to come?  Past performance better NOT be indicative of future results...

*sigh*  I just can't get excited about it.


*Can you search this site?  I'm thinking no, since I was logged in with my Wizards account already.  That's yet another strike, especially since there are only 4 apparent forums (for a website that is going to cover EVERYTHING!?).  How quickly will threads get lost once they are shoved off the front page?

PS - And now I have to watch Brain Candy.  The funny thing is, one of my players just gave me the tape of this since he doesn't have a VHS player anymore...


----------



## ssampier (Jun 16, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Y'know you've been spending too much time online when Thunderbird means internet browser before car.




And I must have spend WAY too much time online when I read your post and realized that Thunderbird is not a browser, it's an email client.


----------



## Mike_Lescault (Jun 16, 2007)

Dragon Snack said:
			
		

> With all the "we have 'kewl' things planned for the DI, but we can't tell you" and then the release of this - I don't have much hope.  It seems like there was no plan and they are playing catch up by implementing user suggestions after the fact (the legalese posted above only serves to reinforce my opinion).




The legalese cited above is for the current forums; that aspect of Gleemax won't be available until close to launch. As far having no plan, I can see why you'd think that, but i'll try and explain why we went about it the way we did. 



> Why should I have to wait to see it become something 'new' and 'different'?  It should have had at least partial functionality from day one.  I can understand wanting to put something out there and improve on it, but it just came off as putting nothing out there and then patching stuff onto it.




The current gleemax.com is a promotional site. We decided to start the promotional site for a few reasons. We wanted to give people a heads up that this was in the works and was coming, so our communities weren't caught by surprise. We also wanted to build up some anticipation since a community orientated site without any critical mass of community will have a tough time starting out. Finally, we wanted to engage the community to take feedback and suggestions on what they'd like to see.

With those upsides, we also encounter some downsides. Some people hate the design/art/layout of the page. Some hate the color scheme (and some have trouble reading those colors). Some are frustrated because they're only receiving information and no actual social networking site features. So I think there's plenty of legitimate criticism, I am just not sure that avoiding those problems wouldn't have created even bigger problems.



> Let's not even start about everything being run by WotC.  This is a company that doesn't allow people to talk about their own novels because people 'insulted' the authors (plus the intermittent banning of whatever the 'issue of the week' is).




Authors can often be even more thin skinned then game designers! But seriously, sometimes authors have specific requests as part of their contracts and we have had to adhere to those agreements with our current forums. As far as intermittent banning of an issue, I've never seen that on the Wizard's forums.



> If this is supposed to be some sort of all inclusive, talk about anything, gathering ground for gamers, banning stuff isn't going to be very conducive to the stated goals of the site.  Does WotC have the stomach to endure the grit that is sure to come?  Past performance better NOT be indicative of future results...




I agree that you can't be trying to promote open all inclusive talk on one hand, while trying to ban or censor on the other. Does WotC have the stomach to endure? I hope so. Otherwise a lot of us are going to be in serious trouble.



> *Can you search this site?  I'm thinking no, since I was logged in with my Wizards account already.  That's yet another strike, especially since there are only 4 apparent forums (for a website that is going to cover EVERYTHING!?).  How quickly will threads get lost once they are shoved off the front page?




Currently there is search for the forums, only I think it's still limited to a subset of forums users as they make sure it's stable for full search to be turned back on. When the actual gleemax.com site launches, search is something that's being built in from the beginning as we design the architecture, so our goal is to have more robust search capabilities then most other social networking sites out there.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Jun 16, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Tide -> sea -> water -> washing -> clean -> clean clothes.
> 
> Trix -> "tricks" -> tricks or treats -> sweets -> made even more jovial by replacing "cks" with "x"
> 
> ...





Ah, i did not think about those other words. I should have thought of that. Anyway, From my art history classes i learned that Kodak doesn't mean anything, and thus its free to be associated with cameras. 

I guess the other examples, I was wrong about, such as tide. They seem to flow into a chain of thoughts to manipulate the buyer, and make them think tide means clean cloths.

Still its cool though. I know gleemax is a inside joke but do you think its a nonsensical name, or something thats has a chain of thought that makes you think games? I think its something of a hybrid.


----------



## Klaus (Jun 16, 2007)

Moon-Lancer said:
			
		

> Ah, i did not think about those other words. I should have thought of that. Anyway, From my art history classes i learned that Kodak doesn't mean anything, and thus its free to be associated with cameras.
> 
> I guess the other examples, I was wrong about, such as tide. They seem to flow into a chain of thoughts to manipulate the buyer, and make them think tide means clean cloths.
> 
> Still its cool though. I know gleemax is a inside joke but do you think its a nonsensical name, or something thats has a chain of thought that makes you think games? I think its something of a hybrid.



 I dunno. A name doesn't even have to mean anything, as long as the made-up word conjures the right emotions on the reader/listener. The word "Gleemax" is weird-sounding, and the "max" suffix conjures up images of electrical appliances.

In the end, you have to ask yourself what image your product needs to project. If the site is to be a virtual equivalent to the gaming store on the corner where you can hook up with friends and talk games (and maybe set out a table to run a game yourself), you need a name that reflects that. Stuff like "Wizard's Tower" (bracuse it belongs to WotC) or "Tower by the Coast", where every user can have a room for himself in the tower. Or "Gamers Corner", if you want to emphasize the social aspect and less of the fantasy side of it.

But now I'm just tossing ideas about...


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Jun 16, 2007)

I would have named gleemax something that evokes the idea of d&d and the game itself, but also evoking  imagery of a bunch of geeks hanging out rolling dice. something like "the basement" or i know, bad name, but i really think wtc should have gone with something that would instantly have meaning to gamers.


----------



## Klaus (Jun 17, 2007)

Moon-Lancer said:
			
		

> I would have named gleemax something that evokes the idea of d&d and the game itself, but also evoking  imagery of a bunch of geeks hanging out rolling dice. something like "the basement" or i know, bad name, but i really think wtc should have gone with something that would instantly have meaning to gamers.



 The Den, The Game Room, Colosseum ("Let the games begin")...


----------



## sjmiller (Jun 17, 2007)

Mike_Lescault said:
			
		

> With those upsides, we also encounter some downsides. Some people hate the design/art/layout of the page. Some hate the color scheme (and some have trouble reading those colors). Some are frustrated because they're only receiving information and no actual social networking site features. So I think there's plenty of legitimate criticism, I am just not sure that avoiding those problems wouldn't have created even bigger problems.



Mike, you can count me among those who find the design/art/layout to be horrible.  The site did not look at all right when I was viewing it in Internet Explorer at work, but was readable (barely) when I used Firefox at home.  The colors are very hard to read, to say the least.  I also think the site looks like it is designed by and for a 12 year old about a science fiction movie/book/something.  It does not look like it has anything to do with a game, especially not a fantasy game.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Jun 17, 2007)

yeah, the text seems to spill all over the background GUI like a blob of green slime. I wonder if this is showing us whats in store with the digital initiative. 

I will give gleemax credit though, the art distilled from the  website itself, does look pretty nifty.


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Jun 17, 2007)

Moon-Lancer said:
			
		

> I would have named gleemax something that evokes the idea of d&d and the game itself, but also evoking  imagery of a bunch of geeks hanging out rolling dice. something like "the basement" or i know, bad name, but i really think wtc should have gone with something that would instantly have meaning to gamers.




As I said on another thread the URL the D&D DI will use will be D&D based. So will the images and branding.

I was involved in the naming process. We looked at hundreds of names. It was a pain in the butt to find a name. We looked at a lot of names that tried their best to say "the home for gamers". We wanted names like gamespot.com (taken) or gamers.com (taken) that could do the job but they are pretty much all gone. Every year tens of thousands of words are trademarked and URLs are impossible to secure without paying squaters to get control of a name. So we decided to go with a made up name. Made up names like Wii, Google, Ebay, etc are easier to secure a trademark and URL but have no meaning to consumers so the name must be given meaning with marketing. Gleemax is a made up name, that we could secure both a trademark and URL on, and we new we would have an easier time giving it meaning du to the history of the name as a) made up by the community b) having an established association with an audience of the types of gamers we want to reach with the site (in this case MTG players). Is it a great name? I guess time will tell. The name brand name Coca-Cola alone is now valued at about $60 billion dollars.


----------



## Dragon Snack (Jun 17, 2007)

Mike, thanks for taking the time to try and win me over, but past experience has taught me to remain skeptical.



			
				Mike_Lescault said:
			
		

> The current gleemax.com is a promotional site. We decided to start the promotional site for a few reasons. We wanted to give people a heads up that this was in the works and was coming, so our communities weren't caught by surprise. We also wanted to build up some anticipation since a community orientated site without any critical mass of community will have a tough time starting out.



It worries me that there is a concern about 'surprising' the communities.  Is something happening to the exsisting communities?



			
				Mike_Lescault said:
			
		

> Finally, we wanted to engage the community to take feedback and suggestions on what they'd like to see.



Let's hope the people who weren't driven away by what they found will give you good feedback.



			
				Mike_Lescault said:
			
		

> With those upsides, we also encounter some downsides. Some people hate the design/art/layout of the page. Some hate the color scheme (and some have trouble reading those colors). Some are frustrated because they're only receiving information and no actual social networking site features. So I think there's plenty of legitimate criticism, I am just not sure that avoiding those problems wouldn't have created even bigger problems.



The problem is, everything you mentioned does major damage to the promotion of the site.  It didn't help build anticipation for me, it pretty much killed it.

Seriously, if it wasn't for this thread I would not have returned to Gleemax and saw that it was different.  Problem is, I still don't care for what I see.

I will go back (because I actually am a huge WotC fan), but eventually even I will give up on a site that only disappoints...



			
				Mike_Lescault said:
			
		

> As far as intermittent banning of an issue, I've never seen that on the Wizard's forums.



Are you new?  Seriously, talk of katanas was banned within the last year (and that isn't the only thing banned in the past year, I just can't remember what else was).  I don't frequent the Wizards boards like I used to, so even I might be missing something.



			
				Mike_Lescault said:
			
		

> Currently there is search for the forums, only I think it's still limited to a subset of forums users as they make sure it's stable for full search to be turned back on. When the actual gleemax.com site launches, search is something that's being built in from the beginning as we design the architecture, so our goal is to have more robust search capabilities then most other social networking sites out there.



If only a select few can search the site, then there is no search.  Let's not confuse the privialges of a few as functionality for the whole site.  Actually, talking about the search issue may be the other issue that was banned in the last year.

I am glad to hear that Gleemax will have a functional search though, it would be near useless without it.

Good luck with Gleemax, the concept sounds interesting enough.  I just hope it will have value to me.


----------



## Stereofm (Jun 17, 2007)

Arkhandus said:
			
		

> It's a gag by WotC from some time ago; Gleemax is supposedly the alien brain in a jar (IIRC) that runs WotC.
> I QUOTE]
> 
> Argh ! That explains the ... graphics ... and the choice ? of ... colours ?
> ...


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Jun 17, 2007)

Scott_Rouse, I'm happy to hear that lots of effort went into the name, and I'm sorry to hear that many names were already taken. I hope the name accomplishes what it intends to.


----------



## wayne62682 (Jun 18, 2007)

Coming to the party a bit late here... but I have it on good authority that "Gleemax" *IS* the Digital Initiative.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 18, 2007)

wayne62682 said:
			
		

> Coming to the party a bit late here... but I have it on good authority that "Gleemax" *IS* the Digital Initiative.



You really should read this whole thread. It's explicitly stated by WotC folks that it's not.

The good authority = not so good after all.


----------



## Khairn (Jun 18, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> You really should read this whole thread. It's explicitly stated by WotC folks that it's not.
> 
> The good authority = not so good after all.




Actually the authority is a good one.  Gleemax is the first DI release and will be the "community center" for the DI.  Its current format is as a promotional site, where it will go through some changes and there will be additions to it, but that doesn't make it any less the start of DI.


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Jun 18, 2007)

Devyn said:
			
		

> Actually the authority is a good one.  Gleemax is the first DI release and will be the "community center" for the DI.  Its current format is as a promotional site, where it will go through some changes and there will be additions to it, but that doesn't make it any less the start of DI.




No disrespect to you Devyn but I would suggest people take my word over yours.  Read my earlier post , no BS from me.

Here is what I said:



			
				Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> The Gleemax page(s) as you see  them today are not how they will look. Color, font, functionality will change. What you have there now is a basic web page with a message board and blogs that are being used to announce the venture and provide information about what it will become. There is also a ARG (alternate reality game) that was used to tease the site and build early interest among game players like like ARGs. The Lost TV show among other thinsg has used an ARG and Jordan Weisman, founder of WizKids, is credited as a early pioneer of using ARGs for marketing.
> 
> Gleemax will provide back end architecture for the D&D DI (commuinity pages for example) but the look and feel and branding will be D&D (down to the URL). If they so choose there will be D&D or other RPG users on the Gleemax portion.


----------



## Jaws (Jun 18, 2007)

Monte Cook is on the Advisory Board.

http://www.gleemax.com/articles/announcement003.html


j.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 18, 2007)

Gleemax = one of the Galchutt!


----------



## CaptainChaos (Jun 18, 2007)

Jaws said:
			
		

> Monte Cook is on the Advisory Board.
> 
> http://www.gleemax.com/articles/announcement003.html




That's a nice safe choice. I'd rather see them go a little further afield than go to one of the designers of 3E.


----------



## Maggan (Jun 18, 2007)

CaptainChaos said:
			
		

> That's a nice safe choice. I'd rather see them go a little further afield than go to one of the designers of 3E.




My guess is that Monte won't be alone on the advisory board, so I wouldn't worry too much about it.

/M


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Jun 19, 2007)

Maggan said:
			
		

> My guess is that Monte won't be alone on the advisory board, so I wouldn't worry too much about it.
> 
> /M




Here is the list so far:

    *  Jeff Bates, Co-founder, Slashdot - Slashdot is one of the oldest and most influential community sites on the web. They also get a lot of things right, especially in terms of attracting a very smart audience, giving them stuff they want, and making the best content bubble to the top so everyone can enjoy it. Oh by the way, he's played D&D since 1st Edition and Magic since Beta.

    * Chris DiBona, Open Source Programs Manager, Google - Chris works on a variety of open source and science related initiatives for Mountain View, Ca based Google, Inc. Previously, Mr. DiBona was a co-founder of (now defunct) Damage Studios, where he concentrated on the creation of a gamma worldesque MMORPG. He brings a ton of knowledge and experience about large scale data transport technology and online community management experience to the board.

    * Simon Carless, Publisher, Gamasutra / Game Developer Magazine - As Publisher of those two publications, Simon has been watching the digital gaming space for years. He knows who is developing what games, how, and why; and we'll be taking full advantage of that perspective.

    * Anthony Gallela, Executive Director, Gama - The Game Manufacturers Association is the premier trade organization for the hobby games industry. As its leader, this puts Anthony in the perfect position to help us make sure that Gleemax is as good for that industry as we think it can be. His gamer resume goes back to D&D and Avalon Hill gaming since 1977 and includes just about everything since.

    * Brian David-Marshall, Owner, Top8Magic - Brian is one of the most effective community builders that Magic has known. He began organizing the first tournaments in New York in 1994, opened a store (Neutral Ground) in 1995, and has been a tournament organizer for assorted trading card games ever since. In addition to his roles as Magicthegathering.com columnist, Pro Tour reporter / commentator, book publisher, and podcaster; Brian seems most proud of his continued role at the center of the New York Magic scene, making sure that people can find each other and then draft.

    * Monte Cook, Co-Designer Dungeons and Dragons 3rd Edition - Having worked in the pen and paper RPG industry for almost 20 years, Monte has experience with many facets of our industry including running his own own design studio -- Malhavoc Press - which is what he left Wizards to do in 2001. The D&D community continues to see Monte's blog as a must-read and we're delighted to have him on the Board to serve as a voice of that community.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 19, 2007)

It's been six years since Monte's vision could be viewed as being even close to WotC's, IMO. At this point, he's not the DMG developer, he's an incredibly successful 3rd party product developer.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Jun 19, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> It's been six years since Monte's vision could be viewed as being even close to WotC's, IMO. At this point, he's not the DMG developer, he's an incredibly successful 3rd party product developer.




Which is fine; that probably makes him an even better candidate for the Gleemax advisory board.

[By the way, I've been meaning to ask: Is that a VT logo on gnome there, Dustyboots? Go, hokies!]


----------



## Mortellan (Jun 19, 2007)

Dragon Snack said:
			
		

> Are you new?  Seriously, talk of katanas was banned within the last year (and that isn't the only thing banned in the past year, I just can't remember what else was).  I don't frequent the Wizards boards like I used to, so even I might be missing something.



 Why would katanas be banned from discussion?! I know from experience you can't talk about D&D novels on the Wizards forums (the ones they actively moderate at any rate)


----------



## Aaron L (Jun 19, 2007)

I think it's pretty cool that the name is an in-joke that fans of M:TG, who the thing is designed for, will understand.  It has flavor and history.  Since I won't be using it I really don't care what it's called, but if I were someone that would use it I know that I'd appreciate the name.

It's the equivalent of calling a D&D version the EGG of Coot, or something similar.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 19, 2007)

CharlesRyan said:
			
		

> [By the way, I've been meaning to ask: Is that a VT logo on gnome there, Dustyboots? Go, hokies!]



Yup. It's not well known, but the limestone caves around Blacksburg? Major gnomish enclave.

I think we were both friends with Angel back in school.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 19, 2007)

If Gleemax becomes popular, it will obfuscate the term *GM* (which all non-D&D games seem to use), thus raising the barrier to entry for other, less popular games. Those marketing devils!

This paranoid vision brought to you by: -- N


----------



## Aaron L (Jun 19, 2007)

Mortellan said:
			
		

> Why would katanas be banned from discussion?! I know from experience you can't talk about D&D novels on the Wizards forums (the ones they actively moderate at any rate)





Because the "OMG katanas are superswords that can cut through gun barrels and marble and became so powerful because they were folded a million times and were so much better than any European swords ever made and should do 2d20 with a 2-20/X4 crit range" contingent on the WotC boards is quite large and vocal, and any time those of us who actually understand anything about swords/medieval arms and armor tried to dispel the Myth of the Katana it caused a rather large argument.  And believe me, the rabid katana worshipers over there simply will NOT let go of their deity quietly, and get pretty darn nasty when the exaltedness of the weapon is denigrated/presented truthfully.  

You really don't want to see what happens when we try to explain to them that many European swords were made just as well as katana were and that masterwork bastard sword is an excellent way to represent it in D&D terms, or explain that the katana was elevated to it's sacred position in Japanese culture and it's "cult of the sword" was because of mythology and social class association and the super-traditionalism of feudal Japan, rather than any real properties of the katana as a weapon.  It gets very ugly, very fast.  Trying to explain how pattern welded Viking swords were made with just as much care and beauty and craftsmanship as laminated katana were, and how the swords Viking swords actually were made hundreds of years _before_ the divine katana were, is tantamount to blasphemy to them.  

Everything they know about katana they learned from _Highlander_, and they don't need things like the facts to get in the way of their religion.

That combined with the tendency of the WizOs to ban any topic that provokes any kind of conflict at all at the drop of a hat is rather disconcerting.  




Sorry for the rant, I'm still suffering from post traumatic stress disorder from old katana threads over there, which were locked and banned without allowing any resolution, thus creating a lot of frustration.  Historical weapon and armor inaccuracies in fantasy games is a pet peeve of mine.  (Oh, how I lay awake at night bemoaning the presentation of shields in D&D!  15 pound solid steel shields?!  Bucklers being unsuited to bashing attacks?!  Gag!!  At least we've moved past the idea that men in full plate were so heavy that they had to be winched onto their horses with cranes, and they gave greatswords a much more realistic weight of 8 pounds rather than the 25 or something that they used to foist on them!)


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 19, 2007)

Viking swords need to be 2d20 with a 2-20/X4 crit range.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Jun 19, 2007)

Mortellan said:
			
		

> Why would katanas be banned from discussion?! I know from experience you can't talk about D&D novels on the Wizards forums (the ones they actively moderate at any rate)



Because of fan-boys with an obsession for anything Japanese, who think that anything Japanese is instantly superior to anything that's Scandinavian, Chinese, Arabic, Spanish, Indian, Slavic, Greek, British, American, Korean, Germanic, Filipino and so on.


----------



## Aeolius (Jun 19, 2007)

Tridents get no respect at all.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 19, 2007)

Aeolius said:
			
		

> Tridents get no respect at all.



I'm currently bullying two player characters with one in my game right now!


----------



## Aeolius (Jun 19, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> I'm currently bullying two player characters with one in my game right now!




try encrusting the tip with fire coral, for that added enjoyment.


----------



## Mortellan (Jun 19, 2007)

Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> Because of fan-boys with an obsession for anything Japanese, who think that anything Japanese is instantly superior to anything that's Scandinavian, Chinese, Arabic, Spanish, Indian, Slavic, Greek, British, American, Korean, Germanic, Filipino and so on.



 Ah I see. I would blame anime for that mainly, but that's a topic for another thread. Carry on.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 19, 2007)

Aeolius said:
			
		

> try encrusting the tip with fire coral, for that added enjoyment.



Hmmm, not bad. This is a scary-ass oceanic mystery cult (and if you think that instead of being what it really seems to be, it's actually a cult dedicated to a figure who got a big write-up in Dragon recently, you wouldn't be wrong). Fire coral would fit in nicely with what else I have planned. (I'm also stealing some stuff from A Song of Ice & Fire with scary ocean religions as well.)


----------



## Mike_Lescault (Jun 19, 2007)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> Sorry for the rant, I'm still suffering from post traumatic stress disorder from old katana threads over there, which were locked and banned without allowing any resolution, thus creating a lot of frustration.  Historical weapon and armor inaccuracies in fantasy games is a pet peeve of mine.  (Oh, how I lay awake at night bemoaning the presentation of shields in D&D!  15 pound solid steel shields?!  Bucklers being unsuited to bashing attacks?!  Gag!!  At least we've moved past the idea that men in full plate were so heavy that they had to be winched onto their horses with cranes, and they gave greatswords a much more realistic weight of 8 pounds rather than the 25 or something that they used to foist on them!)




Bah! Bah I say.

I've started your Katana thread here. Have at.


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Jun 19, 2007)

Mike_Lescault said:
			
		

> Bah! Bah I say.
> 
> I've started your Katana thread here. Have at.





No you didn't


----------



## Dragon Snack (Jun 20, 2007)

Now THAT is funny...

[good natured chiding]I notice you didn't start the discussion on the Gleemax boards...[/good natured chiding]


----------



## D.Shaffer (Jun 20, 2007)

Mike_Lescault said:
			
		

> Bah! Bah I say.
> 
> I've started your Katana thread.  Have at.



 
I might have to break my self imposed ban on the wizards board to see how much this one explodes.


----------



## Mike_Lescault (Jun 20, 2007)

D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> I might have to break my self imposed ban on the wizards board to see how much this one explodes.




Two pages and nothing too exciting yet. 

Geesh, it's like going to watch the Circus Maximus and having everybody in the crowd cheering for someone to get run over by their own chariot!


----------



## Nifft (Jun 20, 2007)

I'm participating! And there's bacon! Yay!

 -- N


----------



## Klaus (Jun 20, 2007)

Mike_Lescault said:
			
		

> Two pages and nothing too exciting yet.
> 
> Geesh, it's like going to watch the Circus Maximus and having everybody in the crowd cheering for someone to get run over by their own chariot!



 On a totally unrelated note, the off-topic, grown-up talk allowed sister board to EN World is called Circvs Maximvs. www.circvsmaximvs.com .


----------



## Jaws (Jun 22, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> grown-up talk www.circvsmaximvs.com



I think that is the closest those two things have ever been together. 


j.


----------



## Odhanan (Jun 22, 2007)

Been reading the announcement and interview. I must say... I'm not quite understanding what the fuss is all about. Doesn't look like it's going to be my cup of tea, and I don't like the general digital marketing direction that's been chosen for us, but I'm just one customer among many.

Honestly... "shrug". That's about the extent of the excitement I'm feeling right now.


----------



## Mike_Lescault (Jun 22, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> I'm participating! And there's bacon! Yay!




Four pages and no decapitations yet!


----------

