# Gleemax is Dead



## Uzzy (Jul 28, 2008)

http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=16452125#post16452125

Interesting to hear.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jul 28, 2008)

Not surprising to me. From the beginning, it seemed that their game plan for Gleemax was way too weak and vague. Hopefully, this will have a visible impact on the development cycle for the DDI.


----------



## Obryn (Jul 28, 2008)

Summary for those of us who can't get to the WotC boards?

-O


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (Jul 28, 2008)

Wizards folding on another lackluster software project? I'm shocked! SHOCKED!


----------



## Uzzy (Jul 28, 2008)

This should work.



> Wizards of the Coast today announced the decision to discontinue its Gleemax social networking site in order to focus on digital initiatives for core brands Magic: The Gathering and Dungeons & Dragons.
> 
> “We have the two best games in the world,” said Randy Buehler, VP of Digital Games for Wizards of the Coast, “we need to take care of them before expanding into new digital arenas.”
> 
> ...






> Gleemax Farewell
> 
> By Randy Buehler
> 
> ...


----------



## crazy_cat (Jul 28, 2008)

Obryn said:


> Summary for those of us who can't get to the WotC boards?
> 
> -O



Quick summary. WOTC folds their crap but free gaming website to refocus resources on developing their various crap but charged for gaming websites.


----------



## Foundry of Decay (Jul 28, 2008)

Hmm.  I admittedly don't know exactly what Gleemax was supposed to be in the first place.  I thought it was just some sort of strangely named upgrades for the current boards.

I'm guessing it means their staffer's blogs will be gone, which is unfortunate since I enjoyed reading some of them quite a bit (A few have LJ that they post to as well so it's not a huge loss).

Here's hoping the best for DDI then.


----------



## Branduil (Jul 28, 2008)

I also didn't ever udnerstand the purpose of Gleemax. What was supposed to make it so special?


----------



## Filcher (Jul 28, 2008)

ENworld 1
Gleemax 0


----------



## Nagol (Jul 28, 2008)

I come to bury Gleemax, not to praise it.


----------



## buzz (Jul 28, 2008)

What's going to happen to all the content on those forums?


----------



## Kzach (Jul 28, 2008)

So the crap website designers are going to be working on developing DDI.

Looking forward to the announcement that DDI is dead too.

Maybe they should hire professional programmers instead of professional Magic players.


----------



## renau1g (Jul 28, 2008)

Filcher said:


> ENworld 1
> Gleemax 0





Huzzah!


----------



## Mallus (Jul 28, 2008)

I still don't understand why Wizards didn't try to partner with an established social networking site if they wanted in on social networking sites. Plenty of people play games on Facebook. Imagine a few _simple_ tools there that would help them to play D&D.

Surely that would benefit the D&D brand more than a long delayed, though admittedly somewhat elaborate set of buggy tools/visualization aids based on a monthly monthly-fee model that doom it before it even hits the market.


----------



## Obryn (Jul 28, 2008)

buzz said:


> What's going to happen to all the content on those forums?



From how I read it (thanks, Uzzy!), the forums are still going to be there.  The blogs will end up going away.

-O


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Jul 28, 2008)

Awesome!  Means more posts for EnWorld.

EnWorld has always been my [digital] intiative.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Jul 28, 2008)

Mallus said:


> I still don't understand why Wizards didn't try to partner with an established social networking site if they wanted in on social networking sites. Plenty of people play games on Facebook. Imagine a few _simple_ tools there that would help them to play D&D.
> 
> Surely that would benefit the D&D brand more than a long delayed, though admittedly somewhat elaborate set of buggy tools/visualization aids based on a monthly monthly-fee model that doom it before it even hits the market.




Exactly.  I said pretty much the same thing when they announced it.  But everyone thinks they can be the next Google/Facebook/whatever, so instead of piggy-backing they think they can re-invent the wheel and have a captive market.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Jul 28, 2008)

Kzach said:


> Looking forward to the announcement that DDI is dead too.



Ditto. I'd like for the D&D Compendium and for Dungeonn & Dragon to continue to be free resources.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jul 28, 2008)

buzz said:


> What's going to happen to all the content on those forums?




There was content on those forums?


----------



## Merlin the Tuna (Jul 28, 2008)

I give Randy a lot of credit for personally assuming a lot of responsibility for this.  I hope that this frees up enough resources on their end to do a solid job with the projects they're now focusing on..


----------



## Xyxox (Jul 28, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> Not surprising to me. From the beginning, it seemed that their game plan for Gleemax was way too weak and vague. Hopefully, this will have a visible impact on the development cycle for the DDI.




My thoughts exactly!

Put the resources where the biggest bang for the buck can be obtained.


----------



## wayne62682 (Jul 28, 2008)

Ding, dong the brain is dead!  Which old brain?  The wicked brain!  Ding, dong, the wicked brain is dead!  While I love ENWorld, maybe this is time for me to take another look at my own gaming social network site I planned to create when Gleemax was first announced.

I honestly had hope for them; I really did.  But they don't seem to have decent programming staff who know what they're doing.  Of course, this doesn't bode well for D&DI, now does it?


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Jul 28, 2008)

Not suprised. Did anyone actually use gleemax for anything? I mean, even the staff blogs are housed on the forums.


----------



## rowport (Jul 28, 2008)

buzz said:


> What's going to happen to all the content on those forums?




"...You should save your blogs by copying that text somewhere else. "


----------



## Styracosaurus (Jul 28, 2008)

Branduil said:


> I also didn't ever udnerstand the purpose of Gleemax. What was supposed to make it so special?





I think that they wanted to have a generic map system that you could use to run 4e combat like a chess game with multiple players, monsters and terrain.  It would basically allow for better on-line play.  IF the idea was to have everyone sitting around with their laptop keeping track of their character sheet, during the game then it would rock.  IF they truly wanted on-line gaming, then World of Warcraft has already won.

They were going to also have an on-line character generator and I hope that it is still in the works.  The CG in itself would win over a few holdouts on 4e, and if you could have a tool that helped the DM run a complex monster then gameplay would be enhanced.

I hope they just focus on making tools for the pen and paper game.  Miniatures and game tiles are a step in the right direction.


----------



## wayne62682 (Jul 28, 2008)

Branduil said:


> I also didn't ever udnerstand the purpose of Gleemax. What was supposed to make it so special?




I guess the idea was kinda to be like how ENWorld2 is supposed to be; provide a way for people to write blogs, articles, network with people and the designers.. the way they described it was "MySpace for gamers"


----------



## Knightfall (Jul 28, 2008)

Filcher said:


> ENworld 1
> Gleemax 0



Long live EN World!!!


----------



## Vanuslux (Jul 28, 2008)

Styracosaurus said:


> I think that they wanted to have a generic map system that you could use to run 4e combat like a chess game with multiple players, monsters and terrain.  It would basically allow for better on-line play.  IF the idea was to have everyone sitting around with their laptop keeping track of their character sheet, during the game then it would rock.  IF they truly wanted on-line gaming, then World of Warcraft has already won.
> 
> They were going to also have an on-line character generator and I hope that it is still in the works.  The CG in itself would win over a few holdouts on 4e, and if you could have a tool that helped the DM run a complex monster then gameplay would be enhanced.
> 
> I hope they just focus on making tools for the pen and paper game.  Miniatures and game tiles are a step in the right direction.




I think you're confusing Gleemax with DDI.  The virtual tabletop, character generator, and game tools like that are all part of DDI.  Gleemax was, as far as I can tell, a botched attempt at a social networking site for gamers.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Jul 28, 2008)

The idea was one I supported, but the execution was pathetic from the beginning. I am not surprised.


----------



## Mike_Lescault (Jul 28, 2008)

Hi All,

A couple of points, which some folks have already pointed out, but worth highlighting:

- The Wizards of the Coast forums are not going away. Nothing will change with the D&D forum area.

- Staff blogs will continue to exist on our forums in our Staff Blog section.

- This change is a very very good thing, as it allows us to focus on Magic Online and D&Di, both of which deserve our attention and resources.

Let me know if you have any other questions. I'll be keeping a close eye on this thread. Thanks!

-Mike


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 28, 2008)

wayne62682 said:


> I guess the idea was kinda to be like how ENWorld2 is supposed to be; provide a way for people to write blogs, articles, network with people and the designers.. the way they described it was "MySpace for gamers"




Aside from the technical problems EN World 2 had so far, I think its working better at that goals for me then Gleemax has. Of course, maybe it just because I am a long time EN Worlder and don't see much reason for switching to another forum... Seems like I don't have to look for one, either, now.

Overall, I appreciate that they admit their mistakes. The question is: Will they _really_ learn from it. Will the rest of the DDI work well? Or will they have to give up on that, too, eventually, as so many are predicing? I still have some hope left, so, WotC, don't disappoint me.


----------



## davethegame (Jul 28, 2008)

Mike_Lescault said:


> Hi All,
> 
> A couple of points, which some folks have already pointed out, but worth highlighting:
> 
> ...




Hey Mike, thanks for stopping in. Do you know what the status of the Gleemax Games are going to be? (Will we still be able to play Vegas Showdown, etc., somewhere?)


----------



## drothgery (Jul 28, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> There was content on those forums?




Sure. Kieth Baker shows up a lot in the Eberron forum, and the SWSE forums have some interesting discussions from time to time. So do the designer 'blog' forums'.

Now, on the general D&D forums and maybe FR-land? Not so much...


----------



## renau1g (Jul 28, 2008)

I greatly look forward to DDI, is there any word on the timing of the releases? I have heard rumours of 1/month, but nothing official yet.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jul 28, 2008)

drothgery said:


> Sure. Kieth Baker shows up a lot in the Eberron forum, and the SWSE forums have some interesting discussions from time to time. So do the designer 'blog' forums'.




I feel like somebody just told me that Elvis had been alive all these years but that, as of today, he was actually really really dead.


----------



## mhensley (Jul 28, 2008)

ahem....


HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


----------



## EricNoah (Jul 28, 2008)

Could you put a couple of spaces in your maniacal laugh, please?


----------



## mhensley (Jul 28, 2008)

EricNoah said:


> Could you put a couple of spaces in your maniacal laugh, please?




better?


----------



## PatrickLawinger (Jul 28, 2008)

*Gleemax*

Okay, I am not "dancing in the streets" about it, but really, Gleemax was a decent idea that was so poorly implemented (in my opinion) that I always felt it was doomed to die. 

Now, honestly, I haven't stopped by since the first horrible ugliness that was Gleemax, but when I did it was so awful looking, clunky, slow, and just plain "ugly" in every sense a website can be ugly that I doubt much of that improved. 

I don't know about anyone else, but I also think that WotC has completely blown in with DnD Insider (STILL not ready) and the Dungeon and Dragon online magazines are a pale shadow of Paizo's issues. 

If they have finally admitted that Gleemax is, well, going nowhere, does anyone have any faith in DnD Insider? If I recall, DnD Insider code is being written by the same folks as Gleemax.

Patrick


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jul 28, 2008)

Every time I peeked in at Gleemax, it just looked like a redundant set of messageboards to me. There's nothing wrong with messageboards, and I actually prefer to communicate through messageboards, but I couldn't figureout why a person would post to Gleemax instead of posting to the regular WotC boards, here, the Paizo boards, or anywhere else that gamers gather.


----------



## GlassJaw (Jul 28, 2008)

Mike_Lescault said:


> - This change is a very very good thing, as it allows us to focus on Magic Online and D&Di, both of which deserve our attention and resources.




NIGEL: I think he’s right, there is something about this, that’s that’s so black, it’s like; “How much more black could this be?” and the answer is: “None, none... more black.”

DAVID: I think, like you’re, like rationalizing this whole thing like into something you did on on purpose. I think we’re stuck with a very, very stupid and a very, very dismal looking album, this is depressing.


----------



## Khairn (Jul 28, 2008)

Brown Jenkin said:


> The idea was one I supported, but the execution was pathetic from the beginning. I am not surprised.




Agreed.

The Gleemax concept was one that I really liked, but I agree thta the execution has been completely pathetic.

This decision is hardly a surprise.  Just another example of WotC's inability to properly manage their online content.


----------



## Vanuslux (Jul 28, 2008)

mhensley said:


> ahem....
> 
> 
> HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA




I seriously thought of posting the exact same thing because of my initial reaction to seeing the thread...but restrained myself.  I love 4th edition, but lately I've had to find WotC's troubles with online stuff to be comedic to help divert my feelings of rage that they haven't at least given a passable character generator yet.


----------



## Obryn (Jul 28, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> but I couldn't figureout why a person would post to Gleemax instead of posting to the regular WotC boards



Am I missing something?

I thought the Gleemax boards _were _the WotC boards, and vice-versa.

Were there separate Gleemax boards, too?

-O


----------



## Michael Morris (Jul 28, 2008)

What happens now?


----------



## Son_of_Thunder (Jul 28, 2008)

*Hmmm? Interesting.*

I've got a hunch that this is just WotC tightening up its belt. Despite the good sales of 4e I've got a feeling that we're going to see more fat trimmed and hopefully it will be enough so that we don't see the whole brand get shelved or sold off.


----------



## mhensley (Jul 28, 2008)

PatrickLawinger said:


> Okay, I am not "dancing in the streets" about it, but really, Gleemax was a decent idea that was so poorly implemented (in my opinion) that I always felt it was doomed to die.




here's a couple of sites that didn't devote millions on development and have done a much better job of building general gaming communities-

http://www.penandpapergames.com/forums/index.php
http://rpgbomb.com/


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Jul 28, 2008)

PatrickLawinger said:


> Okay, I am not "dancing in the streets" about it, but really, Gleemax was a decent idea that was so poorly implemented (in my opinion) that I always felt it was doomed to die.
> 
> Now, honestly, I haven't stopped by since the first horrible ugliness that was Gleemax, but when I did it was so awful looking, clunky, slow, and just plain "ugly" in every sense a website can be ugly that I doubt much of that improved.
> 
> ...




I also recall WotC stating at the Gleemax announcement that it had full corporate backing and that despite naysayers WotC was fully committed to this. It seems now that DDI has full corporate backing as well. At this point I don't trust any statements coming out of WotC.


----------



## racoffin (Jul 28, 2008)

Well, with luck this means they will commit more resources/time/effort into the DDI and other projects. I'll refrain from laughing and simply wait to see what good comes from this.


----------



## Noumenon (Jul 28, 2008)

> I couldn't figureout why a person would post to Gleemax instead of posting to the regular WotC boards




Especially since they didn't migrate your username over to the Gleemax forums, effectively beginning their program with an "opt in" instead of an "opt out."

I was at GenCon when they launched this thing, I did the demo to get the sticker and I still didn't understand what they were trying to do.  This thread did a better job of trying to explain that.


----------



## TerraDave (Jul 28, 2008)

Mike_Lescault said:


> - This change is a very very good thing




Yes, yes it is. 












LONG LIVE ENWORLD!


----------



## Festivus (Jul 28, 2008)

Mike_Lescault said:


> Hi All,
> 
> A couple of points, which some folks have already pointed out, but worth highlighting:
> 
> ...




Just tell me where I can mail the Jolt cola and gummy bears for the DDI programming staff.  I have been looking forward to the tabletop for a while now.  

If WoTC moves too slowly, other replacements (OpenRPG, FG2, etc) will look much more appealing (speaking of my online group of friends opinions towards virutal tabletop DDI).  Already we are playing 4E on Fantasy Grounds but my expectation is for something much more integrated.  Too far down the road and it might be difficult to sell me on it.


----------



## Frostmarrow (Jul 28, 2008)

Gleemax, to me, felt like an injoke and I wasn't initiated. The strange name must have been hilarious to the insiders but I had the sneaking suspicion I was the object of the joke. Maybe that's just me. Happy gamer, that I am.

I hope they won't be deterred by the failure of Gleemax. Some birds just won't fly.


----------



## Branduil (Jul 28, 2008)

So how troubling are those pages at the end of the core books that say "Join D&D Insider, powered by Gleemax!" now?


----------



## Xyxox (Jul 28, 2008)

Brown Jenkin said:


> I also recall WotC stating at the Gleemax announcement that it had full corporate backing and that despite naysayers WotC was fully committed to this. It seems now that DDI has full corporate backing as well. At this point I don't trust any statements coming out of WotC.




DDI = eTools 4.0



Branduil said:


> So how troubling are those pages at the end of the core books that say "Join D&D Insider, powered by Gleemax!" now?




Why would that be any more troubling than those CD-ROMs of sneak peek software in the back of the 3rd edition PHB's?

D'oh!


----------



## Teflon Billy (Jul 28, 2008)

GlassJaw said:


> NIGEL: I think he’s right, there is something about this, that’s that’s so black, it’s like; “How much more black could this be?” and the answer is: “None, none... more black.”
> 
> DAVID: I think, like you’re, like rationalizing this whole thing like into something you did on on purpose. I think we’re stuck with a very, very stupid and a very, very dismal looking album, this is depressing.




I declare this the winning post in the thread.


----------



## Tetsubo (Jul 28, 2008)

Aaaaaaaaaaaaand Wizbro drops the digital ball... again.

I have such hope for the future...


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Jul 28, 2008)

Teflon Billy said:


> I declare this the winning post in the thread.




I concur.


----------



## JoelF (Jul 28, 2008)

davethegame said:


> Hey Mike, thanks for stopping in. Do you know what the status of the Gleemax Games are going to be? (Will we still be able to play Vegas Showdown, etc., somewhere?)





As a follow up to this question, what is the fate of the eagerly anticipated Uncivilized: The Goblin Game?


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 28, 2008)

Looks like there's a pretty major shake-up going on over in Renton.

Frankly, I'm far less bothered (or personally impacted) by _this_ aspect of WotC's recent efforts at refocusing than I am by their change in novel publication policies: http://ww2.wizards.com/books/Wizards/default.aspx?doc=main_discoveries07252008&=RSS-BOOKS

Seeing as how this means I've had not one, but _two_ novels yanked from the publication schedule.  And I know I'm far from the only one.


----------



## Sammael (Jul 28, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:


> Looks like there's a pretty major shake-up going on over in Renton.
> 
> Frankly, I'm far less bothered (or personally impacted) by _this_ aspect of WotC's recent efforts at refocusing than I am by their change in novel publication policies: http://ww2.wizards.com/books/Wizards/default.aspx?doc=main_discoveries07252008&=RSS-BOOKS
> 
> Seeing as how this means I've had not one, but _two_ novels yanked from the publication schedule.  And I know I'm far from the only one.



Can you solicit them to a different publisher?


----------



## PaulofCthulhu (Jul 28, 2008)

I think seeing a set of RPG forums close is a sad occasion, whoever ran them. I certainly liked the concept that Gleemax was aiming for.

Mind you, I'm also unhappy that roleplaying game magazines went away from the newspaper stands, even if they're for systems I don't play as much of.

I think RPGs need more presence (in whatever format) wherever possible!


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 28, 2008)

Sammael said:


> Can you solicit them to a different publisher?




_Shades of Grey_, which was to be published under the Discoveries line, I can try to sell elsewhere, since it was an entirely original novel. (It was, in fact, to be my first totally non-game-related fiction publication, so I'm _especially_ bummed about its cancellation.) But of course, being able to _try_ to sell it is no guarantee of success.

The other novel is murkier, since it was work for hire. I'm still talking to people about what, if anything, can be done with it.


----------



## Angellis_ater (Jul 28, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:


> Looks like there's a pretty major shake-up going on over in Renton.
> 
> Frankly, I'm far less bothered (or personally impacted) by _this_ aspect of WotC's recent efforts at refocusing than I am by their change in novel publication policies: http://ww2.wizards.com/books/Wizards/default.aspx?doc=main_discoveries07252008&=RSS-BOOKS
> 
> Seeing as how this means I've had not one, but _two_ novels yanked from the publication schedule.  And I know I'm far from the only one.




I feel sorry for you, that must be awful!

Seems like D&D and Magic are about to be the ONLY brands WotC retains.


----------



## Ginnel (Jul 28, 2008)

PaulofCthulhu said:


> I think seeing a set of RPG forums close is a sad occasion, whoever ran them. I certainly liked the concept that Gleemax was aiming for.
> 
> Mind you, I'm also unhappy that roleplaying game magazines went away from the newspaper stands, even if they're for systems I don't play as much of.
> 
> I think RPGs need more presence (in whatever format) wherever possible!



Please read the whole of the thread, the forums aren't closing just the blogs.

I found talk on the Astrids parlour forum quite interesting really, the others I dipped into but didn't like what I saw.

To the WotC person, thanks for the info, I'd personally like to know the estimated time in months of the various DDi products, or even a percentage complete on them, but I figure your under wizard lawyer/marketing advice to not disclose this information which is fair enough as a business decision.

Also whats the word on randomised digital minatures? I imagine not because it would be crazy and also will you publish the D&D mini stats with figures which are purchased so people can try that game out if they like? and I assume you are charging for them are there any initial prices for them yet?


----------



## Alzrius (Jul 28, 2008)

wayne62682 said:


> Ding, dong the brain is dead!  Which old brain?  The wicked brain!  Ding, dong, the wicked brain is dead!




Damn, I wanted to post that.


----------



## Gotham Gamemaster (Jul 28, 2008)

It looks like we might be seeing a "DC Implosion" happening at Wizards as we move into post-4e launch territory.  What they really need there to allay fans' concerns and gain back some goodwill is a Joe Quesada-like figure--someone at the top who has the authority to answer questions and who not only knows how to interact with the fanbase but is eager to do so.  

Worse than being minimal, their internet presence is inconsistent. Designers hit the boards or blogs, apologize for their absence, give out crumbs of information (which they treat as if they were matters of national security), promise to be more regular in their postings...and then abruptly disappear to begin the cycle again.


----------



## JoelF (Jul 28, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:


> The other novel is murkier, since it was work for hire. I'm still talking to people about what, if anything, can be done with it.




Can you say what line it was part of?  I wasn't aware that WOTC had anything that wasn't D&D or Magic or the Discoveries imprint.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 28, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:


> The other novel is murkier, since it was work for hire. I'm still talking to people about what, if anything, can be done with it.




Have you been paid for it?  Presumably they've fulfilled their contractual obligations?

I know, I know, you were just venting, not asking for legal advice!


----------



## Ghaerdon Fain (Jul 28, 2008)

All I can say is... maybe, just maybe, WotC is starting to listen.  This is a good move.  It's just possible that they won't repeat E-Tools _et al_!


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Jul 28, 2008)

Le Roi Gleemax est mort, vive le roi Gleemax!


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jul 28, 2008)

That sucks, Ari. 

Getting a novel finished is a far cry from publishing RPG material, of any scope.

I feel for you, and wish you well with your novels.


----------



## SteveC (Jul 28, 2008)

My initial reaction to this news was tempered by seeing Dark Knight recently. To paraphrase Alfred, I don't very much feel like saying "I told you so, but _I bloody well did!_"

I didn't like Gleemax at all, but it's failure, so close on the heels of the launch of 4E does not speak well for WotC's situation. Combine that with what Ari said about their novel policy (as an asside: as one aspiring fiction writer to another, Ari, you have my complete and utter sympathy) means we may be in for some lean times for our favorite game.

My smpathies for everyone involved.

--Steve


----------



## PaulofCthulhu (Jul 28, 2008)

Ginnel said:


> Please read the whole of the thread, the forums aren't closing just the blogs.




You're right, I stand corrected. Still, the whole 'encompass' thing with the backing of the biggest RPG company was an interesting idea.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Jul 28, 2008)

mhensley said:


> here's a couple of sites that didn't devote millions on development and have done a much better job of building general gaming communities-
> 
> http://www.penandpapergames.com/forums/index.php
> http://rpgbomb.com/




Or, you know, www.enworld.org


----------



## Baumi (Jul 28, 2008)

Wow the attitude on Enworld drops from month to month 

You really shouldn't kick someone when he is already down, let's not forget that there were some people behind that Project with big hopes and a concept that would have help us Gamers and that for FREE! 

While I didn't like the design/status of the Beta, it still was a great Idea to see an "official" Site that would have made meeting other gamers in your Region much simpler. 

I know that there are several Sites out there that try this, but whenever I used any of this (including the ENworld 'Gamers seeking Gamers' Forum or the equvalent on rpg.net) I didn't get any answers and couldn't get any recent data about groups from my City (and Vienna has MANY players). A Site from WOTC with this special interest at heart could help us to find new groups or players which is in my opinion very important for the state of the hobby.

The other things like Campaignsites for everyone, blogs etc. would also helped those without Tech-Knowledge. 

And while everyone (with the Knowledge) could make a Site like that Gleemax should have been, no one will reach as many gamers than WOTC would have reached.

ENWorld could be a good contender and I really hope that they will get features like that someday, but I have to admit that I get more and more frustrated about the once so friendly community.


----------



## DaveMage (Jul 28, 2008)

PatrickLawinger said:


> O
> Now, honestly, I haven't stopped by since the first horrible ugliness that was Gleemax, but when I did it was so awful looking, clunky, slow, and just plain "ugly" in every sense a website can be ugly that I doubt much of that improved.




And the good news is, those who were helping make Gleemax the way it was will now be working on the DDI!


----------



## Chowder (Jul 29, 2008)

I'm pleased that WotC has decided to shut Gleemax down.  It would seem that WotC was working on multiple on-line initiatives (DDI, Gleemax, D&D website) simultaneously and doing very badly on all of them.  If I were inclined to be charitable, I would ascribe most of this failure to the fact that they spread themselves too thin, in which case things should improve if they focus on fewer efforts.

However, I'm not inclined to be charitable.  I found the Gleemax brain mascot to be juvenile, the aesthetics awful, the organization atrocious, and the stability lacking.   As other posters have indicated, it's not clear that moving the people responsible for that website to DDI is really what needs to be done.  I think, really, some or all of those folks need to be replaced with people who have demonstrated that they can prepare first-class websites.  One could argue that this would be expensive, but I'm pretty sure it won't be as expensive as having the existing team put together a DDI offering that's on the same quality level as Gleemax and having that DDI offering flop.

-Chowder


----------



## Terramotus (Jul 29, 2008)

Filcher said:


> ENworld 1
> Gleemax 0



Picking one post out of many with the same sentiment to respond to...

I don't understand this.  Would you be posting this same thing if rpg.net went under, or if Giant in the Playground were closing its forums?  Is it just offensive to you that someone would operate a forum with profit as a motive?  If you're at all a fan of WotC's current products, this probably doesn't bode well.  And if you're not a fan...  why invest so much interest?  I don't play Rifts, but I don't wish the company misfortune.  In the scheme of things, Hasbro is far from a bad corporate citizen.

If you're feeling defensive about ENWorld, don't.  Gleemax was never really a competitor, IMO.  People will go to whatever forums they feel most comfortable in, and which has an atmosphere that they get the most out of.  ENWorld has good moderation, and in the past has been mostly about enjoying the games, which is why I'm here.  Gleemax offered something different from that (though poorly).  On the other hand, IMO the increasing anti-WotC bias here is almost bad enough to drive me away.  I come here looking to talk about games, not play Nerd Politics or see people throw bombs at a company whose products I enjoy.

On that note, I find it a bit unbecoming that two members with Staff titles here expressed such obvious joy at Gleemax's demise.



Nagol said:


> I come to bury Gleemax, not to praise it.



Let's put that quote in context.  In Antony and Cleopatra, Marc Antony was saying that to calm his audience by saying that, but then proceeded to do exactly what he said he wasn't there to do, in order to gain support.  Because while a lot of people hated what Caesar did to the Republic, they loved him too.

Final Note:  Hopefully this will be a good thing in the long run, and we'll see DDI perform better with the additional developers.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Jul 29, 2008)

Man thats bad, I don't care that Gleemax is gone on a personal level...I never used it and got all my online DnD info and discussion here. But it is still sad to see something from the hobby go, many people spend/spent a lot of effort on it.

Hopefully we will see the other online aspects of DnD come better and faster (maybe more time spent proof readinQ )

But I am really saddened by the loss of novels and other bits that are not DnD or Magic. I pass my best wishes to all those effected and hope other avenues open up.

Also what is meant by core DnD books? No more FR drizzt-a-thon novels etc. Or is FR, Eberron and then whatever comes next core enough for some love?


----------



## w_earle_wheeler (Jul 29, 2008)

Well, instead of gloating over the end of a poorly implemented idea, I think I'll congratulate Wizard's for being smart enough to cut their losses and refocus their efforts instead of "staying the course" on a dead-end project.


----------



## Henrix (Jul 29, 2008)

Glad to see that Wizards are concentrating on other things than Gleemax. It seemed to lack direction, and the programming was lacking, as well.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 29, 2008)

mach1.9pants said:


> Also what is meant by core DnD books? No more FR drizzt-a-thon novels etc. Or is FR, Eberron and then whatever comes next core enough for some love?




As I understand it, FR, Eberron, and (presumably) any major D&D settings to be released or rereleased in the future make up D&D's "core fiction," and will continue to be published.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Jul 29, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:


> _Shades of Grey_, which was to be published under the Discoveries line, I can try to sell elsewhere, since it was an entirely original novel. (It was, in fact, to be my first totally non-game-related fiction publication, so I'm _especially_ bummed about its cancellation.) But of course, being able to _try_ to sell it is no guarantee of success.



I hope you get it out - I was looking forward to grab some of your work. 

About Gleemax: I'm not surprised... well, it was very forced, the entire concept.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 29, 2008)

Terramotus said:


> On that note, I find it a bit unbecoming that two members with Staff titles here expressed such obvious joy at Gleemax's demise.




I wouldn't pay too much attention to those funny badges.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 29, 2008)

JoelF said:


> Can you say what line it was part of?  I wasn't aware that WOTC had anything that wasn't D&D or Magic or the Discoveries imprint.




While I _think_ I'm allowed to say, I'm not 100% sure, so I'm going to hold off just a bit longer. I'll let you know as soon as I'm certain I can.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 29, 2008)

Morrus said:


> Have you been paid for it?  Presumably they've fulfilled their contractual obligations?
> 
> I know, I know, you were just venting, not asking for legal advice!




Yep, payment was made, so at least that's something. I'm afraid it doesn't do much more than take the edge off the frustration and disappointment, though. 

I mean, don't get me wrong, I hold no malice toward any of the people I worked with, and I'm still willing, even eager, to do future novel work for WotC. This whole this was just a major blow.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Jul 29, 2008)

buzz said:


> What's going to happen to all the content on those forums?




Hell, what happens to the boards?


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jul 29, 2008)

Morrus said:


> I wouldn't pay too much attention to those funny badges.




I try not to let them distract me. Besides, is the whole point of having a fan site that you can express your actual opinion without having to put it through the corporate filters, which are in place to prevent bad PR and revenue loss?


----------



## SavageRobby (Jul 29, 2008)

Ari, that sucks. Truly. 


As for Gleemax, meh. Good riddance to bad trash. If I was someone who was looking forward to the DDI, I would be worried that the same resources that made Gleemax so, uh, cancelable will be transitioned to the DDI. Not encouraging. (But hey, all your dungeons can be ugly green!)


----------



## cthulhu_duck (Jul 29, 2008)

Sad to hear the news about Gleemax - any gaming site helps raise the profile of the hobby.  I'm not surprised however, as it feels like the initiative may not have had the support it should have from upper management.  That's certainly a problem I've seen in other entities with online developments :-(

I'm worried however - is it just me, or is dndinsider.com giving others a nice little error display this morning:

"Microsoft VBScript compilation  error '800a03e9'

Out of memory

/default.asp, line 0 "

?


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 29, 2008)

Lord Tirian said:


> I hope you get it out - I was looking forward to grab some of your work.




I appreciate that. I _do_ still have _Agents of Artifice_ coming out in February. It's a _Magic: the Gathering_ novel, so it may or may not appeal to you (and it won't read the same as my purely original novel*), but I did try to make it accessible to people who aren't all that familiar with the property.

*Not saying that it's better or worse. Just different; the demands for a property-driven novel are quite a bit different from those of a purely original work, so the two books are often stylistically dissimilar.


----------



## Merlin the Tuna (Jul 29, 2008)

Gotham Gamemaster said:


> It looks like we might be seeing a "DC Implosion" happening at Wizards as we move into post-4e launch territory.  What they really need there to allay fans' concerns and gain back some goodwill is a Joe Quesada-like figure--someone at the top who has the authority to answer questions and who not only knows how to interact with the fanbase but is eager to do so.



Uh... Quesada runs Marvel.  And hasn't been very popular at all lately, thanks to what he did with Spider-Man.

I find myself echoing Terramotus' concern; dancing at a funeral is bad form even if you didn't like the guy.  Frankly, I can't fault them for trying.  If Gleemax had come together instead of being a crippled wall of green, it would have been a great resource.  Their failure is bad for the company image and bad for the community, but being spiteful about it doesn't do anything except make ENWorld that much more like the inhospitable online gaming communities I've already abandoned.


----------



## Knightfall (Jul 29, 2008)

Son_of_Thunder said:


> I've got a hunch that this is just WotC tightening up its belt. Despite the good sales of 4e I've got a feeling that we're going to see more fat trimmed and hopefully it will be enough so that we don't see the whole brand get shelved or sold off.



HASBRO... if you're going to sell the D&D brand name then I suggest you sell it to Paizo!


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 29, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:


> While I _think_ I'm allowed to say, I'm not 100% sure, so I'm going to hold off just a bit longer. I'll let you know as soon as I'm certain I can.




Having just been told that it's okay, I can say that the other book that was canceled was _Black Crusade_.


----------



## Knightfall (Jul 29, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:


> _Shades of Grey_, which was to be published under the Discoveries line, I can try to sell elsewhere, since it was an entirely original novel. (It was, in fact, to be my first totally non-game-related fiction publication, so I'm _especially_ bummed about its cancellation.) But of course, being able to _try_ to sell it is no guarantee of success.



You should ask Erik Mona if he'll publish it through Paizo's Planet Stories brand.


----------



## SSquirrel (Jul 29, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:


> Seeing as how this means I've had not one, but _two_ novels yanked from the publication schedule.  And I know I'm far from the only one.




That really sucks Ari.  I hope things pick back up.

Speaking of books not getting released, I wonder if there's been any more word re: the last Raistlin book and the apparent blockade to it getting published.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 29, 2008)

Branduil said:


> I also didn't ever udnerstand the purpose of Gleemax. What was supposed to make it so special?



Livejournal.

Apparently WotC was unaware that Livejournal already existed.

But they've got this great idea for a site where you upload your videos and can embed them into other Web pages! Glee-Tube is going to be HUGE.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 29, 2008)

Knightfall1972 said:


> You should ask Erik Mona if he'll publish it through Paizo's Planet Stories brand.




You know, the thought actually briefly occurred to me... But Planet Stories focuses specifically on "sword & sorcery" style fantasy, and I think _Shades of Grey_, though certainly dark and morally ambiguous enough, probably has too many elements of higher fantasy to qualify. (Plus, I think PS is focused primarily on older writers that have been out of print for a while.) And even if I thought he'd do it, I wouldn't ask Erik to change the focus of an entire line just to do me a favor.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jul 29, 2008)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Apparently WotC was unaware that Livejournal already existed.




Apparently MySpace was unaware, as well, but that didn't stop it from beating LiveJournal's ass in popularity.

Gleemax was just poorly planned and poorly executed. The fact that existing sites served the same function has little bearing on its failure.


----------



## MerricB (Jul 29, 2008)

I shouldn't be surprised by the news, but I am. I didn't think Wizards had it in them to actually cancel it properly. As someone who tried their hardest to use the Gleemax blogs and make them work, and was very vocal about how they failed, I'm very glad that they've realised it was a failure and have taken reponsibility for it.

Cheers!


----------



## The Little Raven (Jul 29, 2008)

Knightfall1972 said:


> Who would you suggest?




Someone who actually has the money to afford it. White Wolf is probably the only real possibility in the RPG industry, which means that it would probably be sold to someone outside the industry.


----------



## Shemeska (Jul 29, 2008)

Honestly, was anyone surprised by this? 

Gleemax was a potentially great idea that had the worst possible implimentation in the world. Forum structure got upended, mixed and put through a blender to the point where it drove quite a number of long-time posters away from the boards (only to do the same thing again once 4e rolled in). The new order behind Gleemax ended up seeing many of the pre-Gleemax WizOs resign or get fired (I've heard some bad stories), which doesn't help for your PR when that sort of stuff trickles out into public time and time again. The VCL / Forum Lead program ended up looking like WotC fanboys pulled together -and without any training beyond zealotry- given posse rights to stamp out dissent about the awesomeness that Gleemax was. A lot of bad moves that compounded on each other repeatedly.

The original color scheme that marketing apparently came up with for Gleemax had zero viability for use on an online forum, because it freaking hurt your eyes to read. It was like a hundred flying dire monkeys jabbing pins into your brain.

Over the past year the bloated thing has been in a perpetual "Alpha". Today, despite the high minded notion that now that it's in the grave, we're told that they'll be able to put all their time and energy towards making the DDI work, but I have to ask just what time and effort is now free to be used for DDI? I can't honestly say I saw anything new added (or fixed) from Gleemax's launch till now when they put a bullet in its head. Maybe I just didn't follow it after getting so jaded about the whole thing after the first few months.

I really worry that there's bargain basement coding by the lowest bidder at work here, and little to no management understanding of just how much in over their heads the DDI coders might actually be. I don't really expect any functional portions of the DDI to be out by GenCon, and at this point I'm not sure it will ever be out. Even if they do manage to put it out, albeit grossly past promised deadlines, they've obliterated consumer confidence in their ability to deliver a functional product. They've shot themselves in the foot, and they're trying to rationalize the end result as somehow being a good thing.

I might be wrong. On some level I hope I am, and that they end up learning a lesson and come out of this humbled and willing to listen to their community rather than the job they've done so far over on Gleemax in the past year. In the meantime, I won't be surprised to see some heads roll over there among management involved with this whole thing. I really don't want to speculate much on there being any link between this, the novel lines getting trimmed (that truly sucks for you Ari...), and Hasbro's profit expectations. Too soon and too little data, but if there's a link, I won't be surprised given how much $ WotC sunk into Gleemax with now zero return on a year of time and budget expense.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 29, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> Someone who actually has the money to afford it. White Wolf is probably the only real possibility in the RPG industry, which means that it would probably be sold to someone outside the industry.




While I have no corporate-level knowledge, I'm fairly certain that these changes do not in any way suggest that WotC is planning to sell of the D&D brand any time soon.


----------



## Knightfall (Jul 29, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:


> You know, the thought actually briefly occurred to me... But Planet Stories focuses specifically on "sword & sorcery" style fantasy, and I think _Shades of Grey_, though certainly dark and morally ambiguous enough, probably has too many elements of higher fantasy to qualify. (Plus, I think PS is focused primarily on older writers that have been out of print for a while.) And even if I thought he'd do it, I wouldn't ask Erik to change the focus of an entire line just to do me a favor.



Well, it couldn't hurt to ask. 

Seriously though, I hope you find a buyer for it. Maybe Tor Books?


----------



## Mark (Jul 29, 2008)

Uzzy said:


> *Gleemax is Dead*
> 
> http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=16452125#post16452125
> 
> Interesting to hear.





Mourn-min will I.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jul 29, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:


> While I have no corporate-level knowledge, I'm fairly certain that these changes do not in any way suggest that WotC is planning to sell of the D&D brand any time soon.




Oh, I know that. I was just pointing out that WW/CCP is the only real in-industry contender to buy the game if it was being sold, since it would require a huge amount of capital to get it out of WotC's hands (more than WotC got it from TSR, I'm sure), and then another big chunk of cash to be able to give it the treatment it needs to be successful in their hands.

Paizo does some good stuff and all, but they can't afford D&D.


----------



## Knightfall (Jul 29, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:


> While I have no corporate-level knowledge, I'm fairly certain that these changes do not in any way suggest that WotC is planning to sell of the D&D brand any time soon.



True. But we were simply speculating. Like those "What If?" comics.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 29, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> Apparently MySpace was unaware, as well, but that didn't stop it from beating LiveJournal's ass in popularity.



As poorly done as MySpace is, it's technically miles and miles ahead of anything WotC has ever managed to get online.

Don't make me get all Lloyd Bentsen here ...


----------



## Filcher (Jul 29, 2008)

Shemeska said:


> Honestly, was anyone surprised by this?




Surprised that it wasn't any good? No. 

Surprised that they had the wisdom to let it die? Yes.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 29, 2008)

Knightfall1972 said:


> True. But we were simply speculating. Like those "What If?" comics.




Sure, I understand. I'd just hate for people to misinterpret, in the midst of everything else going on, and think people were talking about it for real. There are enough rumors going around already.


----------



## JoelF (Jul 29, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:


> Having just been told that it's okay, I can say that the other book that was canceled was _Black Crusade_.




What line was it supposed to be part of?


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 29, 2008)

JoelF said:


> What line was it supposed to be part of?




Sorry, didn't mean to be cryptic.

That was part of what was supposed to be the new Ravenloft line.


----------



## WayneLigon (Jul 29, 2008)

Not a big surprise, here. I tried using Gleemax and it was like pulling teeth to do the simplest most common things. It seemed like there was too much 're-inventing the wheel' going on there. I suspect that at some point, we'll have a nice juicy tell-all story about what happened behind closed doors. 

It reeks and stinks of 'too many cooks', too many people in the company who have too much pull in places they have no business having any say-so in. In my experience, that's usually what kills software projects like this.


----------



## Jack Colby (Jul 29, 2008)

Baumi said:


> Wow the attitude on Enworld drops from month to month
> 
> You really shouldn't kick someone when he is already down, let's not forget that there were some people behind that Project with big hopes and a concept that would have help us Gamers and that for FREE!




It's tough love, and yes, I am being serious when I say that.  I think most everyone here would love to see them successful, but given the terrible implementation from the start it's frustrating to see them (repeatedly) go about things in such an inept way.  Harsh, public criticism can go a long way towards forcing people (or companies) to straighten out and get their act together, and sometimes it is the only way that works. I hope WotC has been suitable embarrassed by this and will redouble their efforts to give us a smartly designed, useful DDI.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jul 29, 2008)

GlassJaw said:


> NIGEL: I think he’s right, there is something about this, that’s that’s so black, it’s like; “How much more black could this be?” and the answer is: “None, none... more black.”
> 
> DAVID: I think, like you’re, like rationalizing this whole thing like into something you did on on purpose. I think we’re stuck with a very, very stupid and a very, very dismal looking album, this is depressing.





This, FTW.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Jul 29, 2008)

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> Or, you know, www.enworld.org




Never heard of it... it is any good?


----------



## Erik Mona (Jul 29, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:


> You know, the thought actually briefly occurred to me... But Planet Stories focuses specifically on "sword & sorcery" style fantasy, and I think _Shades of Grey_, though certainly dark and morally ambiguous enough, probably has too many elements of higher fantasy to qualify. (Plus, I think PS is focused primarily on older writers that have been out of print for a while.) And even if I thought he'd do it, I wouldn't ask Erik to change the focus of an entire line just to do me a favor.




The thrust of the line is reprints of classic sword and sorcery and sword and planet novels, so unfortunately Ari's novel wouldn't quite fit the bill.

Perhaps in 30 years?

Good luck, Ari. I had a two-book deal fall through on a technicality last year, and it was a thoroughly frustrating experience. And I hadn't even started the work yet! I can only imagine what you're going through.

On the other hand, having a finished novel is better than having nothing at all, and if it's any good you ought to be able to find a new home for it.

Good luck.

--Erik


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Jul 29, 2008)

The Grumpy Celt said:


> Never heard of it... it is any good?




On second thought don't go there ... 'tis a silly place.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Jul 29, 2008)

Well, I'm kind of sad about it I guess. But I gave up on Gleemax like I gave up on waiting for George R. R. Martin to finish his epic and moved on.

I think the good news for me is that I learned they moved the designers blogs off Gleemax[alpha] and back on to the forums where they worked better all along. Dunno when that happened as I ditched following the blogs because of the pain and suffering it entailed to track the blogs on Gleemax. Again, I dunno if I'll be going back to following the designer blogs anytime soon, I'm still sore over the massive mess of the Potemkin village called the Other Published Worlds forum.


----------



## Alzrius (Jul 29, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:


> Sorry, didn't mean to be cryptic.
> 
> That was part of what was supposed to be the new Ravenloft line.




Ari, does that mean the entire line of new _Ravenloft_ novels has folded also? I was hoping it'd be thought of as a D&D-brand novel, and thus kept alive, but this sounds disturbingly like the entire _Ravenloft: Dominion_ line of novels has been axed.


----------



## Roland55 (Jul 29, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:


> Looks like there's a pretty major shake-up going on over in Renton.
> 
> Frankly, I'm far less bothered (or personally impacted) by _this_ aspect of WotC's recent efforts at refocusing than I am by their change in novel publication policies: http://ww2.wizards.com/books/Wizards/default.aspx?doc=main_discoveries07252008&=RSS-BOOKS
> 
> Seeing as how this means I've had not one, but _two_ novels yanked from the publication schedule.  And I know I'm far from the only one.




...and now, watch for changes in key staff.

This does not look good.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 29, 2008)

Alzrius said:


> Ari, does that mean the entire line of new _Ravenloft_ novels has folded also? I was hoping it'd be thought of as a D&D-brand novel, and thus kept alive, but this sounds disturbingly like the entire _Ravenloft: Dominion_ line of novels has been axed.




Unfortunately, while I can't speak with 100% surety for each specific novel--it's possible that some of them might see publication during the '08 schedule--I'm pretty sure that yes, the line in general is one of the casualties of the reforcus.


----------



## Roland55 (Jul 29, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:


> Sorry, didn't mean to be cryptic.
> 
> That was part of what was supposed to be the new Ravenloft line.




Doggone it!!

That would have been ... great!


Hmm.  Maybe it will return in a few years.


----------



## doctorhook (Jul 29, 2008)

Around this past Christmas, I started haunting ENWorld instead of Gleemax. By that point, Gleemax was at its most unnavigable.

This is when I realized that, as a social networking site for gamers, Gleemax was competing with ENWorld. (Admittedly ENWorld has a narrower focus than Gleemax aimed for.) However, ENWorld has evolved naturally into the thriving community it is today; Gleemax was an artificial attempt.

Gleemax promised a lot, and it might've been great had it been completed, but it was obviously too daunting a project for even WotC's resources. I'm glad it's gone, (for now), if it means DDI will rock that much harder!


----------



## mach1.9pants (Jul 29, 2008)

Eric Anondson said:


> Well, I'm kind of sad about it I guess. But I gave up on Gleemax like I gave up on waiting for George R. R. Martin to finish his epic and moved on.



Heretic! Keep the faith it will happen.....one day!


----------



## portermj (Jul 29, 2008)

What is the saying?

"No matter what you do, there is someone who always knew you would."


----------



## doctorhook (Jul 29, 2008)

portermj said:


> What is the saying?
> 
> "No matter what you do, there is someone who always knew you would."



And a hundred more waiting on the internet to say, "Nyah-nyah nyah nyah-nyah!"?


----------



## Waldorf (Jul 29, 2008)

Gleemax remains the dumbest name I have heard for anything in the last few years. Its collapse does not bode well for the company. I suspect 4e is not too far behind.


----------



## doctorhook (Jul 29, 2008)

Waldorf said:


> ...I suspect 4e is not too far behind.



That's quite a statement. What are you basing your assessment upon?


----------



## Nifft (Jul 29, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:


> Sorry, didn't mean to be cryptic.
> 
> That was part of what was supposed to be the new Ravenloft line.



 Cryptic... Ravenloft. 

Well, at least you know anything in Ravenloft won't stay dead.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 29, 2008)

Waldorf said:


> Its collapse does not bode well for the company. I suspect 4e is not too far behind.




This is the silliest thing I've read online in quite some time, and that's saying something.


----------



## mhensley (Jul 29, 2008)

DaveMage said:


> And the good news is, those who were helping make Gleemax the way it was will now be working on the DDI!




Actually it's doubtful that the team working on Gleemax have the right skill set to also work on the DDI tools.  Plus it's usually disastrous to throw new people into a project that's so far along.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 29, 2008)

portermj said:


> What is the saying?
> 
> "No matter what you do, there is someone who always knew you would."



It didn't exactly take Nostradamus to see that Gleemax launched poorly and got worse instead of better as time went on.


----------



## wayne62682 (Jul 29, 2008)

Waldorf said:


> Gleemax remains the dumbest name I have heard for anything in the last few years. Its collapse does not bode well for the company. I suspect 4e is not too far behind.




LOL WUT? 

Seriously, what does Gleemax have to do with 4E?


----------



## SavageRobby (Jul 29, 2008)

mhensley said:


> Actually it's doubtful that the team working on Gleemax have the right skill set to also work on the DDI tools.  Plus it's usually disastrous to throw new people into a project that's so far along.




Which means, of course, Wizards will probably do it.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Jul 29, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> I guess we have vastly different ideas of what constitutes amplifying problems.




Yes, we do.  I've given Pathfinder a few looks, not happy.  I apologize for hitting one of my Paizo traps.  I'm still pissed off about the "deformed Mongoloid stillbirth" comment from Erik Mona.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Jul 29, 2008)

*Better Than 10 Super bowls*



Roland55 said:


> ...and now, watch for changes in key staff.
> 
> This does not look good.




Reading this thread reminded me, of all things, of something I heard while listening to a commentary on a DVD of the Simpson’s.

In the episode, Homer is pitching something as “better than 10 super bowls” and in the commentary the writers and producers joke about how they have to pitch things like that to get them to go anywhere.

But you know what is better than 10 super bowls? It’s 11 super bowls. No single episode, movies, video game or what not can match 10 super bowls. But to get the attention of the people who make these things possible, a project is pitched as something it is not and it is predicted that it will achieve success it will never actually reach.

Watching as the 4E situation – the new edition itself and the associated projects and projects – unfold, devolve and in some case fail, I have this nagging feeling that someone, in some meeting, just to get something done, predicted it will (more or less) be “better than 10 super bowls.”

Gleemax was never going to become the be-all and end-all of DnD on-line community and gaming. Had it been pitched as a valuable tool and a community that WotC could control, that would have been an accurate prediction but it probably would not have gotten the attention and funding of Hasbro.

I feel this may have happened to a lot of the 4E situation. So more of it will fail, not because it is bad but because the goals and standards were set ludicrously high. 

So, what will be the next to collapse?


----------



## Lizard (Jul 29, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:


> Looks like there's a pretty major shake-up going on over in Renton.
> 
> Frankly, I'm far less bothered (or personally impacted) by _this_ aspect of WotC's recent efforts at refocusing than I am by their change in novel publication policies: http://ww2.wizards.com/books/Wizards/default.aspx?doc=main_discoveries07252008&=RSS-BOOKS
> 
> Seeing as how this means I've had not one, but _two_ novels yanked from the publication schedule.  And I know I'm far from the only one.




Major condolences, dude.

Looks like some marketroid rolled on the Random Buzzword Table and got "Refocus on our core competencies."

Next time, they might roll "Expand into new market spaces" and it will all start over again...

I do see some good coming from this; as I noted over in the GSL forums, if WOTC doesn't see fansites as potential competition, it might mean their as-yet-unrevealed fan site policy might be more lenient than it otherwise could have been. We'll see.


----------



## DaveMage (Jul 29, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:


> Looks like there's a pretty major shake-up going on over in Renton.




I'm guessing the new CEO wants to put his stamp on things...


----------



## Grymar (Jul 29, 2008)

I'm not surprised, but that doesn't mean I cheer the events.  

I had been a regular visiter/poster on the Eberron boards over there, but when Gleemax Alpha hit, I had so many problems that I started spending more and more time over here.  Then when the Alpha never ended and I could see little if any progress being made on it, I had a suspicion that it'd never really happen.

WILD SPECULATION:
Gleemax canceled
Novels being canceled
"Shake-up" in Renton

I don't fear for 4e, but the D&D brand may be having some rough times.  4e may have set sales records, but I have no idea what sort of costs are involved in the R&D side of such a program or how much margin they were operating on.

Then again, this could also be a great management decision to focus your core people on a few high need projects which will generate revenue (DDI versus the free Gleemax) and it may pay off.


----------



## Olaf the Stout (Jul 29, 2008)

I'm not surprised and yet surprised at the same time.

On one hand, given WotC/Hasbro's track record with these sorts of things it was natural to expect it would all fall in a heap eventually.

On the other hand, I didn't think it would crash and burn so quickly.  I thought it might have lasted a couple of years before it died.

Olaf the Stout


----------



## Thunderfoot (Jul 29, 2008)

mach1.9pants said:


> Heretic! Keep the faith it will happen.....one day!




That's what the Wheel of Time faithful said too ... and then our author died....


----------



## Knightfall (Jul 29, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:


> Unfortunately, while I can't speak with 100% surety for each specific novel--it's possible that some of them might see publication during the '08 schedule--I'm pretty sure that yes, the line in general is one of the casualties of the reforcus.



Nuts!


----------



## Lizard (Jul 29, 2008)

Grymar said:


> WILD SPECULATION:
> Gleemax canceled
> Novels being canceled
> "Shake-up" in Renton
> ...




Or it might be, "Wow! Look at how many copies of 4e we sold! This 'tabletop RPG' thing might not be as dead as we thought; get everyone focused on it, pronto!"


----------



## Dragonhelm (Jul 29, 2008)

Is it wrong of me to want to buy the brain-in-a-jar Gleemax prop from GenCon 2007?


----------



## CountPopeula (Jul 29, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:


> Unfortunately, while I can't speak with 100% surety for each specific novel--it's possible that some of them might see publication during the '08 schedule--I'm pretty sure that yes, the line in general is one of the casualties of the reforcus.




Yeah, this seems like a good idea. I can't think of one single reason anyone would want to publish a re-invigorated line of novels with some brand recognition and an existing fanbase about vampires. I mean, who wants to read about vampires?

[ame]http://www.amazon.com/Breaking-Dawn-Twilight-Saga-Book/dp/031606792X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1217301513&sr=8-1[/ame]

Hmm... Good move, Wizards. Way to cash in on market trends.


----------



## drothgery (Jul 29, 2008)

Thunderfoot said:


> That's what the Wheel of Time faithful said too ... and then our author died....




... though I've actually got a lot a more faith that Brandon Sanderson will finish the series with one more book than I would have if a healthy Robert Jordan would have.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Jul 29, 2008)

CountPopeula said:


> Yeah, this seems like a good idea. I can't think of one single reason anyone would want to publish a re-invigorated line of novels with some brand recognition and an existing fanbase about vampires. I mean, who wants to read about vampires?
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Breaking-Dawn...bs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1217301513&sr=8-1
> 
> Hmm... Good move, Wizards. Way to cash in on market trends.



Yea, its not like HBO is starting a new vampire series http://www.hbo.com/events/trueblood/ right now as well.


----------



## Wycen (Jul 29, 2008)

MerricB said:


> I shouldn't be surprised by the news, but I am. I didn't think Wizards had it in them to actually cancel it properly. As someone who tried their hardest to use the Gleemax blogs and make them work, and was very vocal about how they failed, I'm very glad that they've realised it was a failure and have taken reponsibility for it.
> 
> Cheers!




I was wondering if anybody would say Merric killed Gleemax


----------



## Mark (Jul 29, 2008)

Dragonhelm said:


> Is it wrong of me to want to buy the brain-in-a-jar Gleemax prop from GenCon 2007?





_It's busy at the moment . . ._


----------



## jdrakeh (Jul 29, 2008)

Waldorf said:


> I suspect 4e is not too far behind.




I suspect that you haven't been paying attention to 4e sales figures. Gleemax has _never_ been popular, while the 4e core books are currently selling better than those of the previous two editions of D&D (use Google to locate the number comparisons by Mike Mearls). Comparing Gleemax and D&D 4e with regard to popularity or commercial viability is like comparing apples and oranges.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Jul 29, 2008)

jdrakeh said:


> I suspect that you haven't been paying attention to 4e sales figures. Gleemax has _never_ been popular, while the 4e core books are currently selling better than those of the previous two editions of D&D (use Google to locate the number comparisons by Mike Mearls). Comparing Gleemax and D&D 4e with regard to popularity or commercial viability is like comparing apples and oranges.




I would have said apples to anvils...


----------



## Orius (Jul 29, 2008)

Doesn't bother me.  If anything, this could be good news meaning WotC will focus on getting DDi up and running, rather than wasting time on an ugly MySpace clone. Seems like more focus will be beneficial to me.

Maybe DDi will suck anyway, but perhaps WotC is learning from their past misteps, like e-Tools.  Focus on what needs to be done instead of fluff.  That is fluff that isn't really necessary and holds up the release of a product promised to fans but which is released several years late, and is crapware to boot.


----------



## GVDammerung (Jul 29, 2008)

This is marvelous news. Puss has been drained from a wound, which is a step toward healing the wound.

From the move to 3.5 to the move to 4e, Wotc has had two left feet and put their foot wrong with virtually every step. The death of Gleemax offers hope that the future may be brighter but as the saying goes - it is always darkest before the dawn.

Simply put, D&D is in trouble and those troubles are attributable to mismanagement. Gleemax has failed. The DDI is failing to live up to its promise. The death of Dungeon and Dragon have impaired Wotc's ability to manage its message and given birth to a rival formidable enough to drain sales and good press to a noticeable level. 4e has split the market and, despite "best sales EVAR" talk (best sales by what quantative figure in constant dollars) is not selling to levels that might have been expected had the market not split. AND, we have not yet seen if 4e FR can hold ITS audience!

Gleemax' death needs to be, and I believe will be, followed by the death of the DDI. That's a good thing. That will leave just the 4e tabletop game, which thanks to its mangled, market splitting launch will then sputter, cough and give up the ghost to 5e in 2013. THEN and only THEN will the wound be clean.

4e will be looked back on as the "lost age" of D&D. A time when hubris, overweening ambition and rank stupidity all but sank the game. Just as D&D had to escape 2e TSR to move forward, D&D must now escape 4e Wotc. 

Death before rebirth. Death then rebirth. Holding on to hope for 4e D&D is like postponing the removal of a gangernous limb - it only prolongs matters to no good end. 

BTW, just in case there is a question, this is no comment on 4e as a GAME but as a PRODUCT. There is a difference and a distinction.


----------



## Kzach (Jul 29, 2008)

Mike_Lescault said:


> Let me know if you have any other questions. I'll be keeping a close eye on this thread. Thanks!



Yeah, I have a question.

If Hasbro has a partnership of some kind with Eletronic Arts, why aren't WotC leveraging that connection to get some competent professionals working on their digital initiatives?


----------



## mach1.9pants (Jul 29, 2008)

Thunderfoot said:


> That's what the Wheel of Time faithful said too ... and then our author died....



I am one of those as well, isn't his son finishing it or some-such?


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (Jul 29, 2008)

I've always felt that a good company or employee, working on many opportunities and projects, and keeping within their resources should fail at one project out of five.

Certainly, you want to have lots of success, but there is a unique learning curve to failure that tremendously benefits your successes.  And you want to know that people are taking risks and working at their limits.   A student who only gets safe A grades is never going to get the recommendation from me that a student who gets valiant B grades will.  It's perverse for an academic, but it's a critical lesson from non-profits or other areas where people have to be innovative with very limited resources.

So, potentially, this is a very good sign.  

At the least it's good to know that the alpha was exactly that and that they responded to feedback.



In the 'other speculations category'  I do find it interesting that the 'brand agnostic' social network and non-brand supporting novels have both gotten the axe when a CEO associated with brand management takes the helm.

I suspect that people had to go to the bat even to get Gleemax put even on a hypothetical back burner.


----------



## Echohawk (Jul 29, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:


> Unfortunately, while I can't speak with 100% surety for each specific novel--it's possible that some of them might see publication during the '08 schedule--I'm pretty sure that yes, the line in general is one of the casualties of the reforcus.



The new Ravenloft line seems to have been pretty roughly treated from the beginning: The release dates for the novels have changed several times; WotC arbitrarily changed at least one of the titles (_Black Crusade_ was renamed to _A Crown of Ashes_ in the Fall 2008 catalog) and they seem unsure whether or not the novels are actually Ravenloft novels (they were first mentioned as being part of the Ravenloft Dominion line, then just "Dominion", and finally -- again in the Fall 2008 catalog -- they were entirely divorced from Ravenloft, and simply listed as "Featured Upcoming Titles").

And if _Black Crusade_ (aka _A Crown of Ashes_) has been canceled, then I'm pretty sure we won't be seeing _Heaven's Bones_, _Mithras Court_, _Clockwork Angels_ or _The Sleep of Reason_ either. Only _Heaven's Bones_ (Sep 2008) was scheduled for release before _Black Crusade_ (Oct 2008).


----------



## jeffh (Jul 29, 2008)

Orius said:


> Doesn't bother me.  If anything, this could be good news meaning WotC will focus on getting DDi up and running, rather than wasting time on an ugly MySpace clone.



To be fair to Gleemax, it was barely ugly at all compared to most of the MySpace pages I've seen.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jul 29, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:


> This is the silliest thing I've read online in quite some time, and that's saying something.




What else would you expect from Waldorf?



Charwoman Gene said:


> I apologize for hitting one of my Paizo traps.  I'm still pissed off about the "deformed Mongoloid stillbirth" comment from Erik Mona.




I don't get the "deformed mongloid stillbirth" comment from Erik Mona reference, but it sounds entertaining. Could you give me some more info?


----------



## Samuel Leming (Jul 29, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> I don't get the "deformed mongloid stillbirth" comment from Erik Mona reference, but it sounds entertaining. Could you give me some more info?



This post was famous for awhile.

I really don't understand why Charwoman Gene is upset about that old post.  Mr. Mona's points are valid.

Sam


----------



## Maggan (Jul 29, 2008)

Samuel Leming said:


> This post was famous for awhile.
> 
> I really don't understand why Charwoman Gene is upset about that old post.  Mr. Mona's points are valid.
> 
> Sam




His choice of words with regards to "stillborn ... (and so on) might rub people the wrong way.

It does me, but Mona is free to phrase himself as he likes. But it isn't inconceivable that some people don't find the comparison tasteful to them.

/M


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jul 29, 2008)

Samuel Leming said:


> This post was famous for awhile.
> 
> I really don't understand why Charwoman Gene is upset about that old post.  Mr. Mona's points are valid.
> 
> Sam




Ah. Not quite as entertaining as I expected (no offense Mr. Mona). 

Find me something that rivals the century worm, and then we'll be in business.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 29, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> Ah. Not quite as entertaining as I expected (no offense Mr. Mona).
> 
> Find me something that rivals the century worm, and then we'll be in business.




century worm? Thog not get reference!


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jul 29, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> century worm? Thog not get reference!



Fiend Folio. Erik Mona did the design work on the creature and the art is very.... suggestive of a certain part of the male anatomy, which makes the gross aspects of it all the more disturbing.

edit: A picture is worth a thousand words, so they say anyway, and here is where you can see the picture in question: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ff_gallery/50103.jpg


----------



## rounser (Jul 29, 2008)

> Gleemax' death needs to be, and I believe will be, followed by the death of the DDI. That's a good thing. That will leave just the 4e tabletop game, which thanks to its mangled, market splitting launch will then sputter, cough and give up the ghost to 5e in 2013. THEN and only THEN will the wound be clean.
> 
> 4e will be looked back on as the "lost age" of D&D. A time when hubris, overweening ambition and rank stupidity all but sank the game. Just as D&D had to escape 2e TSR to move forward, D&D must now escape 4e Wotc.



I give you even odds on being correct about this.  Just as likely IMO is that it becomes the new status quo, and acquires momentum.  It's still too early to tell.

I can't shake the feeling that 4E is one big Regdar, trying to serve too many needs coming from cynical or competing frames of reference (e.g. marketing, MMORPGability, miniatures selling, DDI subscription selling, indulgence in game design purism to the exclusion of D&D purism, choosing trademarkable IP over generic fantasy touchstones, crunch uber alles uncompromisingly trumping flavour etc.).  

For that reason I hope you're right, but I don't agree that they're stupid for taking this direction.  I think it's just what happens when you try to compromise too much for "impure" causes like marketing, CRPGability, incompleteness by design, "everything is core" etc....or don't compromise enough between balancing acts like flavour versus crunch.

And it may well work anyway.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jul 29, 2008)

I've just deleted 12 posts which were an off-topic edition baiting and its followups.

Please don't go there guys.

Thanks


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 29, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> Fiend Folio. Erik Mona did the design work on the creature and the art is very.... suggestive of a certain part of the male anatomy, which makes the gross aspects of it all the more disturbing.
> 
> edit: A picture is worth a thousand words, so they say anyway, and here is where you can see the picture in question: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ff_gallery/50103.jpg



 Suggestive, indeed...


----------



## xmanii (Jul 29, 2008)

Uzzy said:


> http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=16452125#post16452125
> 
> Interesting to hear.




As usual: 

_The Wizards of the Coast community website is currently down for extended unplanned maintenance. We apologize for the delay, and hope to have it back up soon. Thank you for your patience, the Wizards Team._


----------



## PeelSeel2 (Jul 29, 2008)

Good riddance to Gleemax!!  YEAH!!!


----------



## Mallus (Jul 29, 2008)

GVDammerung said:


> This is marvelous news.



It is. And now for the DDI...



> Simply put, D&D is in trouble...



Because an ill-conceived marketing tool failed? 



> 4e has split the market and, despite "best sales EVAR" talk (best sales by what quantative figure in constant dollars) is not selling to levels that might have been expected had the market not split.



Right, let's ignore the actual sales data  because it doesn't support your conclusion. It's better to focus on (unstated) hypothetical sales targets invented on the spot. Fact of the matter is, every new edition 'splits the market' because some gamers prefer the older system(s). 



> AND, we have not yet seen if 4e FR can hold ITS audience!



FR can wither away and D&D will still be fine. FR != D&D.


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Jul 29, 2008)

Waldorf said:


> I suspect 4e is not too far behind.




If only that were true.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Jul 29, 2008)

Brennin Magalus said:


> If only that were true.





Three minutes could be an overlap with moderator instructions.  Three hours is not.  If civil discussion and respect for others' opinions isn't something you can handle, then this may not be the right place for you.


----------



## Branduil (Jul 29, 2008)

Trying to connect Gleemax failing with 4e itself seems like grasping to me. Wizard's incompetence in all things digital has never yet affected sales of their physical product.


----------



## Lizard (Jul 29, 2008)

Branduil said:


> Trying to connect Gleemax failing with 4e itself seems like grasping to me. Wizard's incompetence in all things digital has never yet affected sales of their physical product.




Unless one assumes, based on nothing, that various WOTC people are outright lying about 4e sales, it seems 4e can only be considered a success in terms of books sold. The question, though, is how much of the business plan is based on DDI. If the idea was "We will make a decent profit on the books; DDI is gravy!", then, it really doesn't matter what happens to DDI. OTOH, if the plan was "We will sell the books at cost; we'll make our profits on DDI", then, it becomes very important.

The fact 4e was launched before DDI was ready indicates it's seen as supplemental, not primary, income.


----------



## keterys (Jul 29, 2008)

Speaking as the Gleemax Blogs Volunteer Community Lead... shutting down the blogs is a good and correct thing to happen. I'm not official and I don't know if my opinions ever made it anywhere, but for several months I and some others tried to make things work and ran into a lot of technical problems. But they didn't have the resources to get things where they needed to be - that's nothing to be ashamed of, I kept saying it was crazy to do Magic Online V3, D&D Insider, Gleemax Games Portal, Gleemax Blogs, a forum reorg... all at the same time. In the same three month span even. 

I'm also not sure what happened with the outside company that was working on a lot of these things, but I haven't seen mention of it lately so I'd kinda assumed things went really wrong with that deal. Maybe that's just the cynic in me, though.

Anyhow, back in May (before Merric's post, though I suspect his post got a lot more attention : - ) I said dead out that they really should just put the blogs on pause, say they don't have the resources, put the resources on more important stuff (MOv3 and DDI) and that people would understand. This is something I'm sure they already knew, but it's a hard truth of realistic use of resources and I'd been hoping to discuss things at Gen Con more. Apparently there's no need.

There actually was a ton of good stuff on Gleemax blogs that unfortunately only a few people other than myself ever saw. Especially back in the beginning when the technical problems were really bad. 

But, we move on. I really want to see D&DI succeed. Maybe someday the D&D Game Table will be working great and we'll see implemented the ability to port your character, adventure, screenshot, etc to your dnd blog of some sort. Maybe from Magic Online you can export your deck, tournament results, even a play by play. Those are tie ins to their core products that I'd appreciate and are a good basis to build onto for greater online offerings. Maybe that will grow from there into something more. 

In the meantime, get all those resources onto the things people really want and are asking for. As Mike says, that's a good thing. 

Now, Ari losing contracts on novels. That's not a good thing at all


----------



## Xyxox (Jul 29, 2008)

Branduil said:


> Trying to connect Gleemax failing with 4e itself seems like grasping to me. Wizard's incompetence in all things digital has never yet affected sales of their physical product.




Given that the novel lines are supporting Magic:the Gathering and Dungeons and Dragons, it is most likely those two product lines are doing very well and are safe from any possibility of being cut.

Some of the other product lines could be on the chopping block, though.


----------



## Adrift (Jul 29, 2008)

If the end of Gleemax is the beginning of DDI getting a serious effort to completion; I'm thankful for it's demise.

If the end of Gleemax is indicitive of what will happen to DDI; I shudder.

My gaming group loves 4e, and we're all excited about the Character Builder/Visualizer. I hope WotC delivers.


----------



## renau1g (Jul 29, 2008)

I think that 4e is a great game, not the same as 3.5e, but if it was why would we all shell out $100 for the core books? 

It's a great change IMO, and I know this is edition related, but I think 3.5e is great also. My group has two campaigns, one of each edition and we like them both. 

I liken them to chocolate and vanilla ice cream. I like both, but they're different flavours of something I like (ice cream  ).

I never went on Gleemax, but if it was as bad as some of the posters make it out to be than it's for the best, the concept sounded great, but execution was poor. 

I know I'm anxiously awaiting the DDI and am willing to give WOTC a chance (which I'm not sure why people aren't willing to as well)... didn't "New Coke" fizzle mightily? If everyone said "Well Coke is dead, they suck, etc. because a past product failed" we wouldn't have Coke Classic (my personal favourite soft drink). Everyone's in a no-lose situation with DDI, as they're at least offering a free trial (assuming that sitll holds true). If you try it and like it, then subscribe, & if you don't, then don't pay.... it seems like a no-brainer to me. If you subscribe and it doesn't end up working out & WOTC pulls the plug on it then you're out some cash, but you also received something in exchange for it by using the product for the number of months you've paid for. 

I wish all fellow gamers and fans of D&D the best and hope that our hobby can continue in the face of WoW and other competitors. We can all continue playing whichever edition fits our particular group, whether it be OD&D, AD&D, 2e, 3e, 3.5e, or 4e (or whatever other editions I'm missing), but at the end of the day just have fun. 

Anyways my two coppers.


----------



## El Mahdi (Jul 29, 2008)

I don't get the part in the blog about _Dragon_ and _Dungeon_ getting "rave" reviews.  Granted, opinions on ENWorld aren't the only opinions out there (I know, heretical thinking, sorry) but from what I've read here (and reading the new _Dragon_ and _Dungeon_ pdf's myself) I felt _Dragon_ was doing okay to good, and _Dungeon_ was just not making the grade yet.  I would say a more accurate statement is that _Dragon_ and _Dungeon_ are getting a lot of critical review, some good and some bad.

I also find it interesting that they are just now canceling one project, in order to use those resources on another project, a project that is already two months past it's release date.  This doesn't give me a warm-fuzzy feeling about the quality of the management of this project or in the expected quality of the project itself.


----------



## Merlin the Tuna (Jul 29, 2008)

keterys said:


> I'm also not sure what happened with the outside company that was working on a lot of these things, but I haven't seen mention of it lately so I'd kinda assumed things went really wrong with that deal. Maybe that's just the cynic in me, though.



It was called something like Radiant Machine, right?  I vaguely remember a staffer saying that that arrangement fell through a long while back, pretty shortly after the project went available to the public.  I got the impression that the guys they contracted grossly overstated their abilities.

I don't have a source handy on this though, so take it as hearsay until you see something more official.


----------



## HeinorNY (Jul 29, 2008)

waldorf said:


> its collapse does not bode well for the company. I suspect ddi is not too far behind.




ffy


----------



## DM_Jeff (Jul 29, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> There was content on those forums?




*snarf!* Oh man, I haven't laughed that hard at an EN post in a while. Now to tell my employees I'm not having an attack...

Gleemax was supposed to be facebook and/or myspace for gamers I thought. Anyway, the horrible interface had me visit three time, I think, in the first week and then give up in disgust.

-DM Jeff


----------



## Son_of_Thunder (Jul 29, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:


> While I have no corporate-level knowledge, I'm fairly certain that these changes do not in any way suggest that WotC is planning to sell of the D&D brand any time soon.




Here's some rumor fodder for you, total speculation mind you. I IM'd a friend who's field is in corporate financial affairs. I told him what little info I've read here about dropping parts of Gleemax and realigning the book division.

My friend is a non-gamer and there were several scenarios possible but his opinion is that corporate is not happy with the sales of the 'new launch' as he called it, meaning 4e. He said that shareholders are demanding a lot in this current economic environment and the D&D brand isn't meeting expectations.

I asked him what it meant if his hunch was correct? He said he wouldn't be surprised if buyers were being discretely sought.

Like I said total unfounded rumors and wild speculation.


----------



## Obryn (Jul 29, 2008)

Son_of_Thunder said:


> Like I said total unfounded rumors and wild speculation.



Yes, it is.

-O


----------



## Filcher (Jul 29, 2008)

Son_of_Thunder said:


> Like I said total unfounded rumors and wild speculation.




Someone just posted the shareholder report and it had nothing like this. 

But don't let that get in the way of the rumor mill.


----------



## Spirynth (Jul 29, 2008)

ya know, until I saw reference to that announcement - I didn't even know that there was anything at all on "gleemax" - I thought "gleemax" was just the company that hosted the Wizard forums.  It was just a portal that I had to pass through to get to my official Wizards D&D forums.

Now I hear that "gleemax" will go away in September... but the D&D forums will still exist?  Oh.... okay.

(So, I went and looked at the gleemax boards - not really anything I think I'll miss)


----------



## JoelF (Jul 29, 2008)

I think it's VERY unlikely that these changes have anything whatsoever to do with 4E.  They probably have a lot more to do with annual planning and budgeting, which for many companies happen about this time of year for the next calendar year.  If WOTC has been told to cut costs by x%, then they're cutting them in non-core areas of their business, such as Gleemax, extra novel lines, etc.  These are also likely to be their lowest margin products and/or services.  The new CEO also has a lot of influence and is likely looking to make his mark and tighen up the financials so he can show a wonderful improvement in his monthly reports to Hasbro on how the WOTC division is doing.

The recent 4E launch has done well with the core books from all reports, and is simply too new to affect budgeting unless it was a complete bomb.  More likely, a year from now, once 4E has been out a while and WOTC can see how the various sourcebooks and support products for 4E sell, there could be a 4E impact on future budgets, staffing, etc.


----------



## keterys (Jul 29, 2008)

Okay, just got official confirmation that 'Gleemax Games' such as Robo Rally, Vegas Showdown, the Goblin game, etc will be rebranded as 'Wizards Games', but continue to exist.

That was actually of real concern for me, cause I think they're awesome.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Jul 29, 2008)

keterys said:


> Okay, just got official confirmation that 'Gleemax Games' such as Robo Rally, Vegas Showdown, the Goblin game, etc will be rebranded as 'Wizards Games', but continue to exist.
> 
> That was actually of real concern for me, cause I think they're awesome.



Well the more we can get rid of that name the better.


----------



## Propagandroid (Jul 29, 2008)

keterys said:


> Okay, just got official confirmation that 'Gleemax Games' such as Robo Rally, Vegas Showdown, the Goblin game, etc will be rebranded as 'Wizards Games', but continue to exist.
> 
> That was actually of real concern for me, cause I think they're awesome.




From who? Got a link?


----------



## Schmoe (Jul 29, 2008)

I thought the idea was a great one, to provide a social networking place for gamers to meet.  In that regard, I'm sad that it's being shelved.

However, every time I visited I couldn't find anything except links to dead forums.  The implementation and interface was a confusing mess.  In that regard, I'm glad that it's being shelved.  Maybe they can reallocate resources to something that will actually work.


----------



## Daniel D. Fox (Jul 29, 2008)

There are already countless hundreds of social networking apps out there that function fully and completely. Simply put, WotC wasn't ready for a web 2.0 application.


----------



## keterys (Jul 29, 2008)

Propagandroid said:


> From who? Got a link?




From my conversation with Jennifer Paige, community management rep for those areas, in my capacity as VCL for some of those areas.

So... I don't have a link, but I got explicit permission to say that and obviously higher up folks like Randy can change things, but I'd consider it official enough.


----------



## Korgoth (Jul 29, 2008)

Waldorf said:


> Gleemax remains the dumbest name I have heard for anything in the last few years. Its collapse does not bode well for the company. I suspect 4e is not too far behind.




You're right about the collapse not being a good thing for Wizards, but I'm not sure what you mean by "suspect" when you say that 4e is not too far behind. Suspect as in "guess", "hope", "predict"?  I don't dismiss the idea, but I would say that it's not one of those things that can be reliably determined by the facts at present.

Look at the Dark Heresy (WH 40K) role playing game. That thing sold out on pre-orders, and then was cancelled a couple days after its launch. It was then taken up by another company (though I'd say its future is in doubt, insofar as the initial concept called for a 3-game series exploring Inquisitors, Rogue Traders and finally Marines).  Anyway, selling out on pre-order is about as successful as you can expect a launch to be, and yet it got ditched. And many products that don't do nearly as well get retained, for better or worse.

I'd say it ultimately depends on the strategy hatched at Hasbro corporate. Probably the people making the big decisions have never even seen a role playing game being played, are not sure what it is and if it is really all that different from this Yuggie-O thing, and figure that if it's a game and it doesn't involve golf clubs it's probably for 12-year olds.  So there's no sense applying very much logic to analysis of the situation.  These guys will be looking at quarterly sales reports and that's about it, unless I'm wrong and they're some sort of business-gaming savants who actually know something about their products.

4E's lifespan will probably be dictated not by its impressive launch, but by the way the current plan unfolds. Will people keep gobbling up the supplemental products at a comparable rate to the core books? After all, a big launch was to be expected... everybody was curious (even me, though my curiosity finally got beaten out of me by stupid Amazon). But does it have legs? Gleemax going down doesn't speak directly to that, but it is a dent in the business plan. If DDI fails, then I think that 4E will have to do surprisingly well to keep from getting cancelled/sold/shrinkified.

If 4E does get hosed by Hasbro corporate, I think it will be an effect of what I continue to think is its main flaw: it's too radical. It pleases people who didn't like D&D in the first place, but how much will they buy? Whereas it angers or drives away many people who have been boosters of the brand for years or even decades. You cannot treat your legacy customers with contempt and not expect some ill effect. Note that I'm not saying that everybody who is an old timer hates 4E... there are some people who are big D&D geeks from way back who like 4E, even those who like it better than what has come before. But it's a very divisive game, and it effectively bifurcated their existing customer base. That's not a winning strategy most of the time, and if 4E fails it will have been because of that.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Jul 29, 2008)

While i didn´t give a rats ass about Gleemax, the "lolhaha Wizbro" comments in this thread mark an all-time low for the ENworld community, IMHO. "Don´t care about stuff said on the internet" seems to be the best feat choice i made in the last couple of months.
Still, i took it to protect myself when visiting the Wotc boards. I didn´t expect to need it so much on these boards...


----------



## Scribble (Jul 29, 2008)

El Mahdi said:


> I don't get the part in the blog about _Dragon_ and _Dungeon_ getting "rave" reviews.  Granted, opinions on ENWorld aren't the only opinions out there (I know, heretical thinking, sorry) but from what I've read here (and reading the new _Dragon_ and _Dungeon_ pdf's myself) I felt _Dragon_ was doing okay to good, and _Dungeon_ was just not making the grade yet.  I would say a more accurate statement is that _Dragon_ and _Dungeon_ are getting a lot of critical review, some good and some bad.




Can't really comment aside from eprsonal perspective. I like the new mags. Shrug. Maybe they've been getting a lot of fan mail?



> I also find it interesting that they are just now canceling one project, in order to use those resources on another project, a project that is already two months past it's release date.  This doesn't give me a warm-fuzzy feeling about the quality of the management of this project or in the expected quality of the project itself.




I wouldn't read too mcuh into this... It's a corporation. That's how corporations operate.

Let's have a meeting about Gleemax.

Meeting is scheduled. Meeting happens, they discover it's off track. (duh) they discuss who has to meet with whom to come up with a plan to get it back on track. Some people are paying attention, some have their phone on mute while they post on enworld.

Meetings are scheduled. Those meetings happen, people look at powerpoints and stuff. Plans are made. People listen, people ignore.  People aregue. Meeting is scheduled to discuss which plan should be implemented.

Meeting has to be rescheduled because so and so is out of office today, or is too busy to attend.

Meeting finaly happens, people discuss the plans. People argue and debate because no one wants to look like they failed, or be re-organized, or get more work, or changed work, or lose their management status, or name on the project as lead such and such, or they just fail to believe their plan is not the correct plan...

After a few more meetings a consensus is reached.

Corporate life is all about meetings, and lack of information, and everything takes FOREVER.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jul 29, 2008)

Korgoth said:


> If 4E does get hosed by Hasbro corporate, I think it will be an effect of what I continue to think is its main flaw: it's too radical. It pleases people who didn't like D&D in the first place, but how much will they buy? Whereas it angers or drives away many people who have been boosters of the brand for years or even decades. You cannot treat your legacy customers with contempt and not expect some ill effect.




It also doesn't help them that it is so easy for competitors to pick up where they left off with the previous edition. Change to the new edition or be left out no longer applies.


----------



## vazanar (Jul 29, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:


> Sorry, didn't mean to be cryptic.
> 
> That was part of what was supposed to be the new Ravenloft line.




So I guess Ravenloft isnt core DD? That sucks. Sorry to hear about it. Hopefully your other book can find a home.


----------



## Jack Colby (Jul 29, 2008)

Keefe the Thief said:


> While i didn´t give a rats ass about Gleemax, the "lolhaha Wizbro" comments in this thread mark an all-time low for the ENworld community, IMHO. "Don´t care about stuff said on the internet" seems to be the best feat choice i made in the last couple of months.
> Still, i took it to protect myself when visiting the Wotc boards. I didn´t expect to need it so much on these boards...




Consider it a sad commentary on just how poorly WotC handled Gleemax. They managed to turn-off nearly everyone with their lousy implementation of an idea that many here have stated they loved (in theory).


----------



## El Mahdi (Jul 29, 2008)

Scribble said:


> I wouldn't read too much into this... It's a corporation. That's how corporations operate.
> 
> Let's have a meeting about Gleemax. . . .
> 
> . . . Corporate life is all about meetings, and lack of information, and everything takes FOREVER.





Trust me, after 21 years in the Air Force, I understand having meetings (whether or not the meeting is actually understandable itself). I just can't imagine that with a project running this far behind, that it requires eliminating another department or section in order to get enough resources to finish it, and doesn't happen without major changes in management (translation - firing or demotion - or maybe we just aren't hearing about them).

If this had been a project in the Air Force, the project leader would have already been fired from the project, and the section NCOIC or the unit Chief and Officer threatened with their jobs.

Edit: I read a good portion of this thread but just started skimmin about half-way through and didn't see Mousefuratus' posts.  I missed that there is a shakeup and "refocusing" going on at WoTC.


----------



## w_earle_wheeler (Jul 29, 2008)

El Mahdi said:


> I don't get the part in the blog about _Dragon_ and _Dungeon_ getting "rave" reviews.  Granted, opinions on ENWorld aren't the only opinions out there (I know, heretical thinking, sorry) but from what I've read here (and reading the new _Dragon_ and _Dungeon_ pdf's myself) I felt _Dragon_ was doing okay to good, and _Dungeon_ was just not making the grade yet.  I would say a more accurate statement is that _Dragon_ and _Dungeon_ are getting a lot of critical review, some good and some bad.




Agreed. It sounds like the claim that the online magazines are getting "rave reviews" is akin to some hand-waving along with the line "the American's have not entered the city! Everything is fine!"


----------



## Lizard (Jul 29, 2008)

w_earle_wheeler said:


> Agreed. It sounds like the claim that the online magazines are getting "rave reviews" is akin to some hand-waving along with the line "the American's have not entered the city! Everything is fine!"




Well, my hat of e4 know no limit (OK, not really...) but I've been very impressed with the Dragon articles. I've heard few real criticisms of them; they've been well written, imaginative, full of useful crunch, and say, to me, "This is what 4e could have been like if we weren't forced to fit a very tight page count." The Dragon articles give me hope 4e can grow into the game it deserves to be.


----------



## Scribble (Jul 29, 2008)

El Mahdi said:


> Trust me, after 21 years in the Air Force, I understand having meetings (whether or not the meeting is actually understandable itself). I just can't imagine that with a project running this far behind, that it requires eliminating another department or section in order to get enough resources to finish it, and doesn't happen without major changes in management (translation - firing or demotion - or maybe we just aren't hearing about them).




I've never served in the armed forces, so I can't speak to that, but I;ve been in the coorporate world for a while now... and I can tell you it happens a good amount of times.

I'm in health insurance... The amount of times I've seen departments change duties change, way of doing things change... only to go back to how they first started...   It makes your head spin. 

But really... The thing that seems to have happened is that the WoTC digital team just stopped work on one project in order to focus more on another. (What they consider the core aspect of the digital project.)

It's not really that huge of a department change I'm guessing.


----------



## Insight (Jul 29, 2008)

w_earle_wheeler said:


> Well, instead of gloating over the end of a poorly implemented idea, I think I'll congratulate Wizard's for being smart enough to cut their losses and refocus their efforts instead of "staying the course" on a dead-end project.




Hey, no stealing my sig!


----------



## WizarDru (Jul 29, 2008)

Keefe the Thief said:


> While i didn´t give a rats ass about Gleemax, the "lolhaha Wizbro" comments in this thread mark an all-time low for the ENworld community, IMHO. "Don´t care about stuff said on the internet" seems to be the best feat choice i made in the last couple of months.
> Still, i took it to protect myself when visiting the Wotc boards. I didn´t expect to need it so much on these boards...




I won't classify nearly as much of it as Schaendfraude so much as "_I told you so._"  Every couple of years or so, WotC makes a BONEHEADED move.  People warn them ahead of time, but they plow on ahead with what usually isn't a bad idea, but IS a poor implementation.  Worse, WotC risks the company and jeopardizes more feasible projects in pursuit of that goal.

Do you remember Chainmail?  Everyone thought WotC was crazy to try and go head to head with Warhammer using more expensive metal figures.  And they were right.  Do you remember the WotC stores?  WotC got it into their head that they'd make a national game-store chain.  But to prevent their customers and distributors from rebelling, they charged top dollar and shorted their own stores for stock.  Do you remember eTools?  And on and on.  Gleemax is the latest in series of unsuccessful ventures that, to outsiders, appeared to poorly thought out and poorly executed.  Many fear that DDI is the next link in the chain.

I'm not saying that Chainmail, the WotC stores, eTools or Gleemax were destined for failure or even that they were bad ideas.  They weren't.  But their execution and planning was so faulty that they became spectacular failures...and much of it was preventable.  In most cases, people both in and outside the company openly questioned these initiatives but were voted down or ignored (based on comments from ex-WotC employees made here and elsewhere).  So part of what you're seeing/reading is probably just pent up frustration from folks who are tired of seeing good ideas offered to them and then watch as they go crashing to the ground in flames mixed with fear that its about to happen again with the DDI.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 29, 2008)

There's much truth in WizarDru's post.

For the record, though, I loved Chainmail, and I bought about 2 tubs worth of the minis after it got supplanted by DDM and the prices started to fall.  Given that there are still all-metal minis wargames out there- like the quite excellent but pricey Confrontation- I'm not so sure Chainmail died because of its prices, but because of a combination of:

1) Too few of the minis linking up with extant D&D critters & classes.

2) The quick rise in popularity of plastic minis games that showed you could do things with plastic that you simply can't do with metal...and someone at WotC noticed this & quickly reworked the game to take advantage of this.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 29, 2008)

WizarDru said:


> I won't classify nearly as much of it as Schaendfraude so much as "_I told you so._"  Every couple of years or so, WotC makes a BONEHEADED move.  People warn them ahead of time, but they plow on ahead with what usually isn't a bad idea, but IS a poor implementation.  Worse, WotC risks the company and jeopardizes more feasible projects in pursuit of that goal.



Nitpick from a resident German EN Worlder: Schadenfreude. 



> Do you remember Chainmail?  Everyone thought WotC was crazy to try and go head to head with Warhammer using more expensive metal figures.  And they were right.  Do you remember the WotC stores?  WotC got it into their head that they'd make a national game-store chain.  But to prevent their customers and distributors from rebelling, they charged top dollar and shorted their own stores for stock.  Do you remember eTools?  And on and on.  Gleemax is the latest in series of unsuccessful ventures that, to outsiders, appeared to poorly thought out and poorly executed.  Many fear that DDI is the next link in the chain.
> 
> I'm not saying that Chainmail, the WotC stores, eTools or Gleemax were destined for failure or even that they were bad ideas.  They weren't.  But their execution and planning was so faulty that they became spectacular failures...and much of it was preventable.  In most cases, people both in and outside the company openly questioned these initiatives but were voted down or ignored (based on comments from ex-WotC employees made here and elsewhere).  So part of what you're seeing/reading is probably just pent up frustration from folks who are tired of seeing good ideas offered to them and then watch as they go crashing to the ground in flames mixed with fear that its about to happen again with the DDI.




I think that's the real issue - why won't they learn, damn it?! Did they have so many success against the "wisdom" of outsiders and critics that they believe that they can safely ignore them, or do they feel so. (Who knows houw Magic or 3E came into being, and how many people saw this as doomed to fail - I certainly have no idea  ). 

But even then, shouldn't it be obvious that a project like Gleemax must be made with care, and that countless technical problems can destroy all the good ideas behind it? I know that "outsiders" of IT like to underestimate the kind of work involved in creating a project, but then they should get professionals that give them sensible timelines and design goals!

Well, in the end, no company is perfect, and I know from personal experience that mistakes and bad decisions are made. But that doesn't change that I hate to see this stuff happen...


----------



## Xyxox (Jul 29, 2008)

WizarDru said:


> So part of what you're seeing/reading is probably just pent up frustration from folks who are tired of seeing good ideas offered to them and then watch as they go crashing to the ground in flames mixed with fear that its about to happen again with the DDI.




Here's how I'd change that...




> So part of what you're seeing/reading is probably just pent up frustration from folks who are tired of seeing good ideas offered to them and then watch as they go crashing to the ground in flames mixed with *EXPECTATIONS* that its about to happen again with the DDI.


----------



## CountPopeula (Jul 30, 2008)

The way I see it, no matter how you try to spin it, this is bad news. Gleemax kind of sucked, and it didn't work right. Okay, fair enough. But it is a service people use, and telling us how awesome it is that we're going to have reduced functionality is kind of insulting.

It reminds me of when Netflix announced that in order to provide better service and more functionality, they were eliminating separate queues for members of the same household. Now they reversed this decision (and it is about the only thing that makes netflix worth the extra dollar a month over blockbuster), but it was kind of insulting to word it as such.

And I feel this is the same. "Hey, isn't it great we're eliminating our free content section so we can do more work on the stuff we can charge you for?" It may be a sound business decision, and we, as grown ups, can handle that it was made as such. But to tell us "this is a good thing" that we're losing functionality is an insult, and it's dishonest.

Butch up and admit that it was a financial decision, that you simply didn't have the money to do Gleemax and DDI, and decided to close the one that was free. As other people have mentioned, the fact that you can't manage to put together a myspace clone and have it work when even my local NBC affiliate can does not exactly fill me with confidence towards your ability to deliver on any other web initiatives. Telling me it's good that you failed just makes you seem dishonest.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Jul 30, 2008)

Merlin the Tuna said:


> It was called something like Radiant Machine, right?



Yeah, it was called Radiant Machine. I knew there was a partnership hammered out, but I never knew things fell through between them. Of course a press release is regularly made when something big begins, rarely when something big ends.

Is there anyone out there who can shed light on the details of the ending of Radiant Machine's/SolutionsIQ's partnership with WotC? Radiant Machine clearly has some role in Gleemax and may have even been a factor in Gleemax never living up to billing.


----------



## SteveC (Jul 30, 2008)

I guess here's my take on the long and the short of this issue. Gleemax failed, spectacularly. WotC management needs to do some real soul searching to figure out what went wrong and why. We haven't seen any of it in public, which is fine, because frankly the in-house stuff isn't any of the fan's business.

The problem is that we now have DDI coming along, with a lot of the same promises being made, and, once again, little to show for it. Could it simply be that the people who are managing these lines, as good gamers and great people as they are, don't have the experience and talent to design and implement a project like this?

It's not too late, but remember that continuing to do the same thing over and over and expecting different outcomes is unlikely to meet with success.

--Steve


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 30, 2008)

CountPopeula said:


> It reminds me of when Netflix announced that in order to provide better service and more functionality, they were eliminating separate queues for members of the same household. Now they reversed this decision (and it is about the only thing that makes netflix worth the extra dollar a month over blockbuster), but it was kind of insulting to word it as such.



Blockbuster also provides edited versions of movies instead of the theatrical cuts, without any indication of such. (Typically it's the Wal-Mart cut, but there's a lot more awareness that Wal-Mart does this.) I'll take Netflix giving me the movie I want to see, rather than the version that Blockbuster wants me to see, any day of the week.


----------



## CountPopeula (Jul 30, 2008)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Blockbuster also provides edited versions of movies instead of the theatrical cuts, without any indication of such. (Typically it's the Wal-Mart cut, but there's a lot more awareness that Wal-Mart does this.) I'll take Netflix giving me the movie I want to see, rather than the version that Blockbuster wants me to see, any day of the week.




Actually, I didn't know that about Blockbuster. But I was going to switch to them if Netflix had gone ahead and eliminated profiles, just to show my displeasure with my buying power. Actually, announcing the change and then going back to business as usual did gain Netflix some general good will from me, it shows they're listening to their customers and reacting to what they want from their service. But it goes to show you how fickle consumers can be. Even though Blockbuster doesn't offer the service Netflix was planning on eliminating, I was far from the only one considering switching if Netflix did eliminate this function.

I wonder if anyone is considering not buying Wizards' products because of the loss of Gleemax? I wonder if a failure of DDI would effect sales of D&D books.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Jul 30, 2008)

My take . . .


CountPopeula said:


> I wonder if anyone is considering not buying Wizards' products because of the loss of Gleemax?



Unbelievably unlikely.







CountPopeula said:


> I wonder if a failure of DDI would effect sales of D&D books.



Not a chance.


----------



## Vanuslux (Jul 30, 2008)

Lizard said:


> Well, my hat of e4 know no limit (OK, not really...) but I've been very impressed with the Dragon articles. I've heard few real criticisms of them; they've been well written, imaginative, full of useful crunch, and say, to me, "This is what 4e could have been like if we weren't forced to fit a very tight page count." The Dragon articles give me hope 4e can grow into the game it deserves to be.




Dragon is awesome in my opinion and as far as I can tell most people seem to agree that it's good.  Dungeon, though, as far as I can tell lost a lot of faith with Rescue at Rivenroar, the first installment of the new adventure path, and I think the mag is still recovering somewhat from a lot of people who were crushingly disapponted with that adventure.


----------



## 2WS-Steve (Jul 30, 2008)

RE: A failure of DDI affecting sales of D&D books:



Eric Anondson said:


> Not a chance.




I definitely believe it will in an opportunity cost way -- in that, a successful DDI will increase sales of D&D books since a good DDI will make it easier for more people to game, and those people will then have a reason to buy more books.


----------



## Amphimir Míriel (Jul 30, 2008)

Lizard said:


> Unless one assumes, based on nothing, that various WOTC people are outright lying about 4e sales, it seems 4e can only be considered a success in terms of books sold. The question, though, is how much of the business plan is based on DDI. If the idea was "We will make a decent profit on the books; DDI is gravy!", then, it really doesn't matter what happens to DDI. OTOH, if the plan was "We will sell the books at cost; we'll make our profits on DDI", then, it becomes very important.
> 
> The fact 4e was launched before DDI was ready indicates it's seen as supplemental, not primary, income.




I don't believe that setting a MSRP of over $100.00USD for the 3 core rulebooks indicates in any way that the physical books are a "loss leader".

I am pretty sure that Wizards is getting a profit out of the books... Now, they see D&DI as a new way to gain revenue, and I am pretty sure that they are counting on its success.



Son_of_Thunder said:


> I asked him what it meant if his hunch was correct? He said he wouldn't be surprised if buyers were being discretely sought.
> 
> Like I said total unfounded rumors and wild speculation.




... and people still choose to avoid the facts in order to do that.

People, the 4th edition core rulebook sold so well, _they went into a second printing ahead of schedule!_. 

And, while D&D wasn't even mentioned in the Hasbro shareholders meeting, everything indicates that Hasbro and WotC are doing _just fine_, thank you.



Vanuslux said:


> Dragon is awesome in my opinion and as far as I can tell most people seem to agree that it's good.  Dungeon, though, as far as I can tell lost a lot of faith with Rescue at Rivenroar, the first installment of the new adventure path, and I think the mag is still recovering somewhat from a lot of people who were crushingly disapponted with that adventure.




For what its worth, I was not impressed _Rescue at Rivenroar_, but regained confidence with _Last Breaths of Ashenport_.

All of the Dragon content so far has kept me happy... If I were not in the third world, I would probably pay $10.00USD a month just to get the magazines.


----------



## Erik Mona (Jul 30, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:


> Yes, we do.  I've given Pathfinder a few looks, not happy.  I apologize for hitting one of my Paizo traps.  I'm still pissed off about the "deformed Mongoloid stillbirth" comment from Erik Mona.




Ah ha! _That's_ why you're such a crank! 

Well, sorry about the comment. It was made off-handedly and was not meant to offend. I apologize for torquing you off and I should have chosen my words more carefully.

--Erik


----------



## Samuel Leming (Jul 30, 2008)

OK, I haven't really cared one way or another about Gleemax. I'm neither happy or sad about this news.

Looking at the www.gleemax.com site with a very tiny browser this is what I find in their http header:

```
Connection: close
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 06:53:10 GMT
Server: Microsoft-IIS/6.0
X-Powered-By: ASP.NET
X-AspNet-Version: 2.0.50727
Set-Cookie: ASP.NET_SessionId=ii4ior45mhow0z45nc5vvp45; path=/; HttpOnly
Set-Cookie: ecm=user_id=0&isMembershipUser=0&site_id=&username=&new_site=/&unique_id=0&site_preview=0&langvalue=0&DefaultLanguage=1033&NavLanguage=1033&LastValidLanguageID=1033&ContType=&UserCulture=1033&SiteLanguage=1033; path=/
Cache-Control: no-cache
Pragma: no-cache
Expires: -1
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Length: 51931
Set-Cookie: BIGipServerNewGleemaxPool1=4044359946.20480.0000; path=/
```

Great googly moogly!  They tried to build gleemax using Active Server Pages.  That's like putting a jockey on a greyhound and expecting him to win horse races.  You'd be lucky if you even manage to finish the race!  Well, I guess they didn't, did they?  If you're going to enter a horse race show up with a horse not a dog.

Anyway, to be more specific, the poor developers were most likely spending more time fighting the default behavior of their platform than developing their app.

Here's the header for www.wizards.com. Looks like they're stuck wielding the same golden hammer:

```
Connection: close
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 07:11:52 GMT
Server: Microsoft-IIS/6.0
X-Powered-By: ASP.NET
Content-Length: 8347
Content-Type: text/html
Set-Cookie: ASPSESSIONIDQCSTBDRS=IFPKLFAANGDHBLCLNJBAOFLM; path=/
Cache-control: private
Set-Cookie: BIGipServerWWWPool1=3843033354.20480.0000; path=/
```

Based upon their choice of platform and tools, I don't predict an easy ride for DDI.  I wouldn't even put money down that they finish it.

Sam


----------



## Orius (Jul 30, 2008)

GVDammerung said:


> Gleemax' death needs to be, and I believe will be, followed by the death of the DDI. That's a good thing. That will leave just the 4e tabletop game, which thanks to its mangled, market splitting launch will then sputter, cough and give up the ghost to 5e in 2013. THEN and only THEN will the wound be clean.




Disagree; WotC has the right idea with at least trying with DDI (course, if they fail that will be stupid.)   Sorry, but tabletop games are facing increasing competition from online gaming, and WotC needs to do DDI and do it right to remain relevant.  A DDI failure could be very dangerous for the future of D&D, and so would a 5e release as early as 2013 IMO.



Kzach said:


> If Hasbro has a partnership of some kind with Eletronic Arts, why aren't WotC leveraging that connection to get some competent professionals working on their digital initiatives?




Well, besides from me being unable to resist making a snarky comment that a partnership with EA would produce an unending series of DDI '08, DDI '09, DDI '10 etc, I have to agree.  If Hasbro has a partnership with a big software developer, then they should work with them on all manner of electronic endevours for their various IP.  Unfortunately, the only D&D related game released since 3.5 that I know of that was any good is NWN 2.  Also, EA's areas of expertise might not be what WotC needs for DDI.




jeffh said:


> To be fair to Gleemax, it was barely ugly at all compared to most of the MySpace pages I've seen.




That makes me glad I don't do MySpace.  But then, that's user-created ugliness, right? A personal shrine to one's own lack of taste isn't the same thing as a whole company displaying an appalling lack of taste.



rounser said:


> I can't shake the feeling that 4E is one big Regdar,




In light of some of the Regdar abuse threads here lately, I find that statement amusing.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jul 30, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Nitpick from a resident German EN Worlder: Schadenfreude.




Hey, I hope you didn't derive pleasure from pointing that out


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jul 30, 2008)

Samuel Leming said:


> Great googly moogly!  They tried to build gleemax using Active Server Pages.  That's like putting a jockey on a greyhound and expecting him to win horse races.  You'd be lucky if you even manage to finish the race!  Well, I guess they didn't, did they?  If you're going to enter a horse race show up with a horse not a dog.
> 
> Anyway, to be more specific, the poor developers were most likely spending more time fighting the default behavior of their platform than developing their app.
> 
> ...




Sorry mate, but don't let your prejudices show quite so much!

Asp.Net 2.0 is perfectly capable of being used to build industrial strength web applications. As a platform/tools combination it has some advantages and some disadvantages over other stuff.

Gleemax certainly suffered from being built on the SharePoint Server technology from Microsoft (which they (and others) bill as being great for doing CMS websites, but in my experience it is complete pants) and also suffered from bad design and bad programming.

Surprise! Bad design and bad programming will lead to a bad site no matter what platform it is programmed on.

Cheers


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 30, 2008)

Orius said:


> Also, EA's areas of expertise might not be what WotC needs for DDI.



EA has no single "expertise", I think. They have a lot of smaller companies which create vastly differing games, and there should be one among them that could handle something like the DDI. The problem with EA is mostly that they seem to prefer fixed release dates and if a game is not entirely finished by them - so be it. That's what bugfixes are there for... (Heck, it can even damage the story of a game!). 

WotC is at least willing to delay the roll-out of the full DDI. Which is different from Gleemax, where they gave us a Alpha version to play with. And it's obvious that people don't like playing around with Alphas, because Alphas are buggy, slow and generally leave a lot to be desired. Psychologically, the "Alpha" sticker doesn't improve the Gleemax experience at all. 



Plane Sailing said:


> Hey, I hope you didn't derive pleasure from pointing that out



No, certainly not...


----------



## rounser (Jul 30, 2008)

> In light of some of the Regdar abuse threads here lately, I find that statement amusing.



I didn't mean it as a compliment.


----------



## Samuel Leming (Jul 30, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:


> Sorry mate, but don't let your prejudices show quite so much!



I've earned these prejudices the hard way and wear them without any shame.

If somebody where to suggest that a kitten would make a good pet for a child I'd probably not question it. Now a guinea pig I'd have to look at since they have a reputation for biting if startled.  If somebody were to suggest that a scorpion would make a good pet it would be a tough sell indeed.  I'm not too worried about showing my prejudices against scorpions as pets.


			
				Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Asp.Net 2.0 is perfectly capable of being used to build industrial strength web applications.



One could build a web app in raw C or even in Forth, but there are better tools.

I doubt if you guys chose to go with LAMP here at EN World based only on the price.


			
				Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> As a platform/tools combination it has some advantages and some disadvantages over other stuff.



In the interest of education, can you point me to some of those advantages? No, really. Coming from an EN World admin I'd wouldn't just dismiss such a link as bull manure.

Under what conditions would the poisonous scorpion be a better pet then the fluffy kitten?  Is it not a scorpion at all but some other kind of ugly-ass arachnid?


			
				Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Gleemax certainly suffered from being built on the SharePoint Server technology from Microsoft (which they (and others) bill as being great for doing CMS websites, but in my experience it is complete pants) and also suffered from bad design and bad programming.



Well, having not really paid attention to gleemax until now, I have no knowledge about the quality of their programmers.  Hearing that they suck comes as no surprise though.

SharePoint... wow.  Why?  Another golden hammer?

Since you've been following this, what are they using for a database?  I'm not just assuming SQL Server.


			
				Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Surprise! Bad design and bad programming will lead to a bad site no matter what platform it is programmed on.



Of course. Almost goes without saying. Picking a tool that hampers you will make it all the worse, contributing to mediocre programmers producing a bad site.

Sam


----------



## Imaro (Jul 30, 2008)

For all those claiming that Gleemax has nothing  to do with WotC's plans for 4e I would say there is strong evidence that you are wrong.  Now hear me out...

Gleemax was always planned to produce revenue, with a model that is similar to the one now being used by DDI.  There was free content, just like DDI and then there was premium content... as well as pay as you go items (similar to the virtual minis and PDF books for DDI).  

In fact, as I stated in another thread, I believe Gleemax was actually based on a model for generating more revenue than DDI, as it was structured to appeal to a wider range of "gamers" as opposed to "rpg players who primarily play D&D"... which is a niche within a niche.  I think this assumption is also supported by the fact that Gleemax has had more work done on it and was rolled out first.  

With all this said it begs the question, someone had to front the bill for this expensive digital initiative and that would be WotC.  Now I think the fact that it has failed without generating any revenue but definitely accruing cost has put a pinch on WotC.  Thus the "refocus" on D&D and MtG as their primary brands (though I wonder where SW saga ed. fits into this?).

Now if DDI is also vaporware or fails badly... what's left to cut, in order to make up for the costs?  Regardless of how much the corebooks sold for 4e, do people really think WotC is going to cut MtG as opposed to D&D?  Get real, D&D will be the next to fall and we will get some line about WotC refocusing back to their roots of CCG's.  So yeah I think the success or failure of DDI may have a profound effect on D&D 4e.


----------



## Stoat (Jul 30, 2008)

What parts of Gleemax were going to be premium/pay as you go?


----------



## JohnRTroy (Jul 30, 2008)

ASP.NET as a platform runs fine and is well supported.  So does SQL Server.  (SQL Server is loads better than MySQL).

I really doubt ASP.NET is the cause of Gleemax's failures.  

(Sharepoint is somewhat of a beast though and I wouldn't recommend it for public high-traffic sites.)

It doesn't really matter is its LAMP or Windows based.  What matters is not just the strength of the technology, but the strength of the coders and design process.  It is very possible to create a bad site with any tool.  It could be the methodology of how they built the site--it could be time based, budget based, lack of captial (for instance they only have X servers when they need Y, they didn't implement Caching, etc.)  Maybe they were too rushed and weren't allowed to optimize things.  Or some bugs were considered "acceptable failures".

Anyway, Plane Sailing is correct.  Do not fall for the trap of "Microsoft Sucks, Open Source Rules".  Anybody who is prejudiced against Microsoft should take a look at the problems companies like Twitter and other Web 2.0 companies are having using a Framework like Ruby on Rails, or the problems MySQL has with certain tasks.  There is no perfect platform.


----------



## Imaro (Jul 30, 2008)

Stoat said:


> What parts of Gleemax were going to be premium/pay as you go?




Here are some relevant sections from the Gleemax fact sheet...you can find it by googling Gleemax announcements.  Emphasis below is mine.



			
				Gleemax Factsheet said:
			
		

> Strategy Games: Along with elite WotC titles like Magic: The Gathering®, Dungeons & Dragons® and Uncivilized: The Goblin Game™, Gleemax.com will provide a variety of Indie games, all stamped with the WotC seal of approval for great game-play, giving them a prominent distribution channel to reach strategy game players. Gleemax will also feature on-line versions of popular strategy board games. *Players will be treated to various trial and full versions of games free ofcharge, with enhanced and full versions available for a one-time or subscription fee*






			
				Gleemax Factsheet said:
			
		

> Editorial Content: Gleemax.com will provide focused content for strategy hobby gamers with unique up-to-date information on popular strategy games, tournaments and category announcements. Along with articles and interviews, the portal will feature custom content from various industry leaders in the form of blogs and message board postings, and tools for user-generated content. *Additional premium content will be available to subscribers for a nominal fee*


----------



## Stoat (Jul 30, 2008)

I hadn't seen that before.  I had thought that Gleemax was a pretty good idea poorly executed.  But if the plan was to use it for direct revenue, it was just a bad idea.


----------



## mhensley (Jul 30, 2008)

SteveC said:


> It's not too late, but remember that continuing to do the same thing over and over and expecting different outcomes is unlikely to meet with success.




Even worse, doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.


----------



## mhensley (Jul 30, 2008)

JohnRTroy said:


> ASP.NET as a platform runs fine and is well supported.  So does SQL Server.  (SQL Server is loads better than MySQL).
> 
> I really doubt ASP.NET is the cause of Gleemax's failures.




It doesn't really speak well for their technology vision though.  I've worked at several companies doing ASP.  I've also worked doing PHP and JSP.  Without a doubt, the PHP and JSP sites running on Apache are far more stable and robust than any site I've run using ASP and IIS.  Every company I've worked at using IIS has had to reboot it's webservers on an almost daily basis.


----------



## Clefton Twain (Jul 30, 2008)

Can't really say I'm surprised or sad to see it go. I never understood its purpose nor did I ever use it (though I tried).

--CT


----------



## Greylock (Jul 30, 2008)

Keefe the Thief said:


> While i didn´t give a rats ass about Gleemax, the "lolhaha Wizbro" comments in this thread mark an all-time low for the ENworld community, IMHO. "Don´t care about stuff said on the internet" seems to be the best feat choice i made in the last couple of months.
> Still, i took it to protect myself when visiting the Wotc boards. I didn´t expect to need it so much on these boards...




Number one, there weren't more than a handful of those type posts out of a 200+ post thread, and number two, I think the folks who made those posts were misinterpreting the news anyways.

_~ stop the low level insults. Thanks - PS_


----------



## rounser (Jul 30, 2008)

_~ if someone is behaving badly, report it - don't respond. Thanks, PS_

I'm far from WOTC's biggest booster at the moment (I'm very frustrated with what they've done), but this thread seemed really harsh and personal to me, too, earlier on.  I mean, the guy wears his heart on his sleeve and people are getting stuck into him - it's a bit hard to read, and definitely a bit of a low point for ENWorld karma.


----------



## renau1g (Jul 30, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> EA has no single "expertise", I think. They have a lot of smaller companies which create vastly differing games, and there should be one among them that could handle something like the DDI. The problem with EA is mostly that they seem to prefer fixed release dates and if a game is not entirely finished by them - so be it. That's what bugfixes are there for... (Heck, it can even damage the story of a game!).




Except Spore , which instead they cut portions of the game out to be released in the inevitable add-on/expansion pack.

But I'd prefer them to at least have some programmers with some expertise, which they *seem* to be needing.


----------



## gargoyle2k7 (Jul 30, 2008)

Goodbye, Gleemax, and good riddance.  It was unimpressive as it was, and once WotC announced that anything posted on Gleemax was thenceforth owned by them, I divorced myself from that fetid morass.  I am not against a public forum that is >the< center for all gaming, but not when it is in a non-user friendly site, and anything I write becomes another's property.  Gleemax is dead; long live the gamers!


----------



## phloog (Jul 30, 2008)

Of interest to me (and possibly ONLY me)...

One complaint that is voiced here often is that the 'suits' at Hasbro/WOTC don't love the game, and don't care about RPGs, so they do such-and-such.

This thread and others may have revealed to me a problem with WOTC:

They have TOO MANY gamers involved.

I find myself asking 'Would you rather have a company run by gamers with a great love of D&D, or by a bunch of uber-business people?', and I don't know the answer.

Gleemax feels like a project built by a bunch of people with a love of the game and gaming, but little skill or business acumen.

GSL feels like a project that resulted from a bunch of people with high business skills, but absolutely no concern for gaming, gamers, or 3pps.  It was a  slick business move.

So which WOTC is in charge of DDI?  Will we get a lousy product designed by people with love and the best of intentions?  In this case I think we'd rather have cold-hearted programmers who know what they're doing.

To do this right, it seems like you need someone who LOVES D&D, AND is excellent at business/programming/etc.  How many of those are out there, and are we therefore doomed?

The other option, and I'm afraid that they are FAR from this, is to reorganize along these lines:

Create teams for the business and application development that need NO knowledge of or love for the underlying games.  For each team, appoint one or more Consumer Advocates/Liaisons, who have the ability to provide vision and guidance for the products and decisions made.  

The CAs are not allowed to make decisions about coding, platforms, development tools, programming flow, pricing, etc.

The business teams/programmers are not allowed to make decisions about functionality, scope, flavor (color, fonts, etc.).

I'm probably oversimplifying, but I'd rather have someone fixing my car who knows about cars than have someone fixing my car who knows nothing about them, but REALLY loves to drive as much or more than I do.


----------



## gargoyle2k7 (Jul 30, 2008)

EDIT: oops.  Somehow this posted twice.  Sorry.

Goodbye, Gleemax, and good riddance. It was unimpressive as it was, and once WotC announced that anything posted on Gleemax was thenceforth owned by them, I divorced myself from that fetid morass. I am not against a public forum that is >the< center for all gaming, but not when it is in a non-user friendly site, and anything I write becomes another's property. Gleemax is dead; long live the gamers!


----------



## rounser (Jul 30, 2008)

> I find myself asking 'Would you rather have a company run by gamers with a great love of D&D, or by a bunch of uber-business people?', and I don't know the answer.



If you're talking in particular about software development, don't think it's very relevant.  Even programmers with experience in making the type of application cannot be trusted to make a realistic estimate.  If anything, because they've done it before, they'll be _too_ optimistic and confident about the time and resources it will take.

I think it has little to do with whether you're a cat person or a dog person, suit or geek, but whatever person you are just take that estimate of the amount of time you think it will take and triple or quadruple it.  It may help to have a background in other software projects when pulling this initial figure out of one's behind.

Even though it seems unscientific ("take your figure and triple it/raise it to the power of 2/add an extra zero etc.") I've seen that recommended both in academia, and in the real world, and seen the reasons for it pan out - programming has this insidious tendency towards underestimation of the time it will take, in everybody....and to overlook or underestimate critical details like testing, backup, migration, training or maintenance.  You just need to know that, and act accordingly.

Of course, there's always the possibility that they already did this, and it still ran out of time and resources.  That's just software projects for you.  (Man I'm glad I'll never have to be part of another death march.)


----------



## drothgery (Jul 30, 2008)

mhensley said:


> It doesn't really speak well for their technology vision though.  I've worked at several companies doing ASP.  I've also worked doing PHP and JSP.  Without a doubt, the PHP and JSP sites running on Apache are far more stable and robust than any site I've run using ASP and IIS.  Every company I've worked at using IIS has had to reboot it's webservers on an almost daily basis.




ASP.NET is not ASP. IIS5 (Win2K), IIS6 (Win2K3), and IIS7 (Win2K8) are not IIS4 (WinNT). In 7 years of building and maintianing an ASP.NET-based web site, I've had exactly one outage that required the web server to be rebooted for anything other than regularly installing OS updates or server/network migration.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Jul 30, 2008)

Yeah, "classic" ASP is an interpreted system limited to scripting languages, while ASP.NET is a full-functioned compiled framework.  I would be wary of using Classic ASP for high-profile sites, but the .NET framework is just as good as the various LAMP packages (along with the latest Windows 2003 server).

One of the actual problems with Wizards site is that it appears they still use "Classic ASP" for their CMS, along with the Microsoft XML SDK.  They really should move that to .NET.


----------



## GVDammerung (Jul 30, 2008)

Jack Colby said:


> Consider it a sad commentary on just how poorly WotC handled Gleemax. They managed to turn-off nearly everyone with their lousy implementation of an idea that many here have stated they loved (in theory).




In broad theory, Gleemax was a terrific idea.  However, I was always somewhat suspicious when the idea was parsed.

As I understand it, Magic and D&D are both Wotc but they have seperate management structures within Wotc.  In other words, the D&D guys can't tell the Magic guys what to do and vis a versa.

So, here comes Gleemax.  And it is supposed to serve BOTH Magic players and D&D players.  Right there, I smell a number of cooks in the kitchen that does not bode well for the broth.

Then, when I look at what Magic players and D&D players have in common, I see more differences on large scales of magnitude than sames.  No offense to Magic but it does not call for nor generate the discussion that D&D world building (even if Magic can generate as much talk of deck strategies as D&D can "builds") does.  Then there is the whole "let me tell you about my PC" thing where D&D again outpaces Magic in sheer volume of chatter.  D&D players (to include DMs) just generally seem more voluable.  I can't imagine that something of this was not percieved when the D&D and Magic teams were called into a room to discuss Gleemax.

While both the D&D and Magic teams probably saw utility in a Gleemax product, I'll bet the D&D team saw more utility for its brand.  I'll take that one step further and guess that the Magic team had to (worse case) be persuaded to support what was seen internally as more a D&D thing, or (best case) passively went along as long as it did not require much of the Magic team.  Then things started to go off-plan with Gleemax.

At such point, I can imagine that whatever "support" Gleemax had from the Magic team - all but vanished - leaving Gleemax to twist in the wind with support (or at least not outright rejection) from only the D&D team.  The final end of Gleemax was then a foregone conclusion.

I think it was a poor decision to try to partner Magic and D&D on Gleemax given that it served Magic much less than D&D.  That it attempted serve both suggests to me a corporate compromise that came undone when the Magic team, who got less from Gleemax, would not support Gleemax through its growing pains.

Gleemax would have had a better chance of success IMO if it had attempted to serve only the D&D community - at least at first.  That it did not says to me that the D&D team didn't have the stoke to get that done or that Hasbro was not sufficiently sanguine on the idea unless Magic was included.  Magic not D&D makes Hasbro smile, I think, but Gleemax was more a D&D thing.  That was trouble brewing from the start.


----------



## smootrk (Jul 30, 2008)

I just think that somebody up the ladder at Hasbro finally got around to investigating what WotC was doing with this.  He/They took a look and said, "What the F*** is this?!", and followed it up with, "SH** CAN THIS PROJECT, get your heads out of your Arses, and get back to doing game books!"

I mean, honestly, how could any rational upper management person come to any other conclusion upon seeing the mess that it was - and continues to be??


----------



## Scribble (Jul 30, 2008)

SteveC said:


> The problem is that we now have DDI coming along, with a lot of the same promises being made, and, once again, little to show for it. Could it simply be that the people who are managing these lines, as good gamers and great people as they are, don't have the experience and talent to design and implement a project like this?
> 
> It's not too late, but remember that continuing to do the same thing over and over and expecting different outcomes is unlikely to meet with success.
> 
> --Steve





It's the same people (or so it seems) that are working on the WoTC digital project as a whole. Killing Gleemax amounts to lightening their workload, so I see it as a sign that DDI will benefit.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jul 30, 2008)

Waldorf said:


> Gleemax remains the dumbest name I have heard for anything in the last few years. Its collapse does not bode well for the company. I suspect 4e is not too far behind.



[OFF TOPIC]Ironically, I know the guy who came up with the name Gleemax.  He was my boss for a while.  It was meant to be ironic and mocking of WOTC, but they adopted it as their mascot a LONG time ago.

For those people who didn't hear the story, though it is slightly off topic, the deal was that way back in the day there was a discussion about R&D for Magic at WOTC.  Someone was irate that R&D wasn't showing up at major tournaments to see what cards were winning and what strategies were useful.  The person asked if there was actually a brain in charge of Magic.

The response was:
"Yes, there is. It's kept in a large jar of formeldahyde in one of the
unused sections of the WotC office complex. Every so often, according to
tradition, new members of the WotC R&D team are brought before Gleemax
(as the brain is called) and have their thoughts assimilated into the
hive mind.

I could be wrong though  "

And thus was born the name Gleemax.  Some people from WOTC saw the post and thought the idea that there was a brain secretly controlling R&D to be the funniest thing ever, they took him as a mascot and got artists to draw pictures of him to post on cubicle walls.  Memos were apparently sent around blaming Gleemax for things that went wrong.  I've heard stories that one of the high ups in R&D would go into their software for tracking cards they were working on and put in comments like "GLEEMAX DISLIKES THIS CARD".[/OFF TOPIC]


As for the site.  I liked the concept.  For those people who don't know, Gleemax was supposed to be a social networking site for gamers in general.  The idea was that each person could make a profile, have their own blog, and be able to easily search for other gamers.  You'd search for people in your area who liked the same games as you, form gaming groups and use the built in blogging features to post information about your campaign for all your players to read.  You'd have all of your players post their characters so you can easily see everyone's stats.  All your players could make in character posts about the game.  You could control access to the information to just your group or make it public if you want the rest of your friends to be able to read about the campaign.

The point was to have a one stop shop for everything gaming for all games.

I do have it on good authority that a bunch of those features will make their way into DDI, but instead of being free and generic for all games, they will instead cost a monthly fee and be only for WOTC games.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jul 30, 2008)

rounser said:


> Even though it seems unscientific ("take your figure and triple it/raise it to the power of 2/add an extra zero etc.") I've seen that recommended both in academia, and in the real world, and seen the reasons for it pan out - programming has this insidious tendency towards underestimation of the time it will take, in everybody....and to overlook or underestimate critical details like testing, backup, migration, training or maintenance.  You just need to know that, and act accordingly.




The book [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Waltzing-Bears-Managing-Software-Projects/dp/0932633609/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1217440604&sr=8-1]Walzing With Bears[/ame] should be required reading for anyone near the business of software development. If you want to know about how to get accurate projections, of which risk management is _key_, with realistic projections, this is your book.

If you work in a business like mine where the guy who does the realistic projection and delivers on time is looked down on and fired while the guy who gives the great projections and is always late is lauded as a go getter and moves up the corporate ladder, probably not the book to read. I'm betting the developers gave a great estimate at a low cost, got the job, and then promptly took their money to the bank while WotC floundered over their trust of a group who gave an impossible estimate.

Note: If an estimate looks impossible, then it is! Go with the honest programming contractors, people! They might not tell you what you want to hear, but maybe what you want to hear isn't going to happen no matter how much optimism you have! Rushed projects not only have more bugs, but they also take _longer_! Nobody wants to hear it, but thems the facts.

People keep saying in this very thread that Gleemax was a great idea with poor implementation. I totally disagree with that sentiment. The idea was made up almost entirely of scope creep. It was, by definition, in software terms a Bad Idea (tm). There were no clear cut goals, no realistic timetables for those goals, and no single driving force behind the development process. You can't go into a software project with a malleable, nebulous, undefined project scope. You. Will. Fail.

Gleemax was doomed from the beginning because they wanted it to be all things to all gamers. They should have started with a few key features, which they would work toward before anything else, with a very clear timetable for when each part would be rolled out based on factors which are totally predictable if one does the research.

Anyway, it saddens me that this could fail so badly when it didn't have to. Managing a software project is different than any other managerial task, with its own set of rules. Too many software projects fail. They don't have to. There's no reason they have to fail.


----------



## Serendipity (Jul 31, 2008)

_Wizards of the Coast has made the decision to pull down its Gleemax social networking site_

Oh, is that what it was?
Really, that makes it sound like a dating site.  (d20Cupid?  ** runs ** )


----------



## Shemeska (Jul 31, 2008)

Does anyone else have a bad feeling about Radiant Machine, the coders for Gleemax, being the same group in charge of DDI?


----------



## Lizard (Jul 31, 2008)

Shemeska said:


> Does anyone else have a bad feeling about Radiant Machine, the coders for Gleemax, being the same group in charge of DDI?




Like Luke approaching the Death Star...


----------



## Psychotic Jim (Jul 31, 2008)

Hmm, well I understand Chainmal miniatures was a wreck before their success with the D&D minis, signifying they learned from the hurdles they ran into with Chainmail.  Perhaps it's a chance for the designers to learn from the difficulties they ran into with Gleemax and use that experience to help make sure DDI goes more smoothly.


----------



## Samuel Leming (Jul 31, 2008)

JohnRTroy said:


> ASP.NET as a platform runs fine and is well supported.  So does SQL Server.  (SQL Server is loads better than MySQL).



Are they using SQL Server? I can't tell from just a cancel notice and a http header.  Wouldn't surprise me if they are.  They'd have to have a reason to not go with a full MS stack.

Anyway, SQL Server has never bitten my ass, so I've no gripes about it.  For doing standard corporate CRUD apps that don't require much in the way of performance and do require ACID compliance it is a much better choice then MySQL.



JohnRTroy said:


> I really doubt ASP.NET is the cause of Gleemax's failures.



I doubt it's the only cause...

I'm not saying this to insult anybody, but I really do believe that if Wizards had gone with LAMP and the typical programmers and designers that usually work with such they would have had better results.



JohnRTroy said:


> (Sharepoint is somewhat of a beast though and I wouldn't recommend it for public high-traffic sites.)



I don't follow Microsoft in the server world(obviously) so Sharepoint is new to me.  Reading a bit about it I can only say WTF were they thinking?



JohnRTroy said:


> Anyway, Plane Sailing is correct.  Do not fall for the trap of "Microsoft Sucks, Open Source Rules".  Anybody who is prejudiced against Microsoft should take a look at the problems companies like Twitter and other Web 2.0 companies are having using a Framework like Ruby on Rails, or the problems MySQL has with certain tasks.  There is no perfect platform.



It's not really a Microsoft vs everybody thing.

The more your app deviates from the framework defaults, the more trouble you're going to have with something like Rails.  This is almost the same problem I think Gleemax was having.  I'm not making an OSS advocacy argument.  I'm arguing that they should have used better suited tools.

Sam

PS, I'll look up the Twitter/Rails thing.  I could use a good laugh.

[Edit]
Ok, I've read a bit on the Twitter thing. Scaling issues are not what I was expecting.  If they had expected that kind of traffic and load, Ruby on Whales was not a good choice for anything past prototyping.

[Edit2]
Though it has nothing to do with the Gleemax crap, the steps that web apps like Twitter, YouTube & Flickr took to scale are fascinating.


----------



## Samuel Leming (Jul 31, 2008)

JohnRTroy said:


> Yeah, "classic" ASP is an interpreted system limited to scripting languages, while ASP.NET is a full-functioned compiled framework.  I would be wary of using Classic ASP for high-profile sites, but the .NET framework is just as good as the various LAMP packages (along with the latest Windows 2003 server).
> 
> One of the actual problems with Wizards site is that it appears they still use "Classic ASP" for their CMS, along with the Microsoft XML SDK.  They really should move that to .NET.



As I've said, I'm out of the MS loop.  ASP as it was is exactly what I envisioned when I saw that header.

So in a way you actually agree with me. 

I'll look into this foul ASP.NET thing, since being ignorant and out of date isn't a virtue outside of politics.

Sam


----------



## rounser (Jul 31, 2008)

> If you work in a business like mine where the guy who does the realistic projection and delivers on time is looked down on and fired while the guy who gives the great projections and is always late is lauded as a go getter and moves up the corporate ladder, probably not the book to read. I'm betting the developers gave a great estimate at a low cost, got the job, and then promptly took their money to the bank while WotC floundered over their trust of a group who gave an impossible estimate.



Yup.  It's like auditing or security, where doing too a good job will in effect put you out of business.  That's unlikely to change anytime soon.

My advice is to get the heck out of the IT industry, if you practically can.  The pastures are much greener elsewhere.


----------



## Samuel Leming (Jul 31, 2008)

rounser said:


> My advice is to get the heck out of the IT industry, if you practically can.  The pastures are much greener elsewhere.



Good advice.  It's not usually worth all the extra baggage and bull you have to put up with.

Sam


----------



## Aeolius (Jul 31, 2008)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> It's kept in a large jar of formeldahyde in one of the unused sections of the WotC office complex.




"The Head was hardly human, the head is finally dead,
I can live forever in formaldehyde, he said." (Harry the Head - The Residents)

   I think WotC should set up shop on Second Life, for their "social networking". They could set up a virtual tavern where gamers could meet, above a virtual dungeon that all could explore. Avatars representing various core races and monsters could be made available for sale, along with props for weapons, equipment, and so on. Members could purchase a virtual plot of land in a nearby village, to keep their belongings. Next door, in a virtual castle, gaming rooms are equipped with tables, chairs, dice, and whiteboards for sharing maps. Second Life is free and cross-platform. 

As for the DDI; take klooge.werks and dundjinni, add a bit of Poser and Bryce, and use that instead.


----------



## wayne62682 (Jul 31, 2008)

Aeolius, that's a great idea.

<tangent>
The problem with Gleemax was that it was working alongside PHP based forums, with their own data, and trying to act as a broker between the two.  That's why there was so many problems with it.  The forums have always been buggy and prone to crashing.  As I recall the official word was it had to do with the size of the MySQL database it used, and they couldn't implement clustering for some reason.  I'm not even sure what Gleemax used as a database; SQL Server makes sense, but since Gleemax brokered the login to the forums, and the forums use MySQL, maybe it was using MySQL as well?

In any event, I don't think it was an issue of technology chosen, but more a lack of planning prior to hand specs (of course, I doubt there *were* any specs) to developers, and a lack of budget to properly do things.  If you want a MySpace clone and have as big (technically speaking) a fanbase as Magic+D&D+Other games who you can reasonably guess would want to use it (after all, people didn't want to use it largely, I think, because it _never worked_), you need a decent budget to set up a database cluster for it to scale properly.  You can't expect SQL Server Express and 2GB of space to work (NOTE:  I don't know what they had.  This is an extreme example, obviously) for anything beyond a prototype/limited beta.

Oh, and Ruby on Rails is teh awesome, although the community is rather rabid and David H. Hansson (the creator) seems to have a very elitist, snobby attitude.  Twitter's problem is that they didn't plan for it to take off, so when it did they were left scrambling to make it scale, instead of putting measures in place _just in case_ it did scale.  Rails can scale adequately if you prepare for it.  If you throw together a quick mockup and you suddenly start getting millions of users, you're probably in a bad spot.
</tangent>


----------



## phloog (Jul 31, 2008)

not to completely hijack, but on development.

I have seen the 'triple the estimate' advice given, and I think it's common, popular, and ridiculous.  A smart business won't triple the estimate - a smart business will go in eyes open, generate a REAL estimate, and not force it to be compressed just because it doesn't match your ideal target date.  A project doesn't take less effort or time just because you need it by XXX.

What also makes it ridiculous is that it can be assumed that some estimates will be CORRECT - or close to it - so now you're not only tripling the bad estimates, but the good ones as well.

On top of that, the inputs will begin to shrink and get goofy, or other games will be played.  

"I know they're going to triple it and that will look bad, so I'll tell them it will take two weeks instead of six" - and so you should have done a x9 for that one.

and what about someone who overestimates to be safe?

It just seems like a bad practice, designed to get around a different set of bad practices (using the goal as the estimate, etc.)


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Jul 31, 2008)

Aeolius said:


> I think WotC should set up shop on Second Life, for their "social networking".




So, D&D needs furries, gambling and porn?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 31, 2008)

phloog said:


> not to completely hijack, but on development.
> 
> I have seen the 'triple the estimate' advice given, and I think it's common, popular, and ridiculous.  A smart business won't triple the estimate - a smart business will go in eyes open, generate a REAL estimate, and not force it to be compressed just because it doesn't match your ideal target date.  A project doesn't take less effort or time just because you need it by XXX.
> 
> ...




Well, my experience is that it seems too work well, at least for IT projects. I have no idea why it works that way. One of my guesses might be: 
In an ideal world, where it was only you (and your team) making all the shots and developing the software, it would take the original estimated time.

But every time you have to make an estimate, you have to give it to someone above you. And that one above you will not just want to hear your estimate. He will set the goals of the projects - and he will change them. And he will want to instill a feed-back look. Which adds time again, as you build something, show it to him, and he eventually comes back to you with new suggestions. And if he has to give the estimate to someone above him, the same happens again. 

These matters of indirection take time. It can take days until you get feedback to something you developed. And in these days there is a reasonable risk that whatever you do, is invalidated by the response, or must be reworked if you want to work in the response.


----------



## Aeolius (Jul 31, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:


> So, D&D needs furries, gambling and porn?




D&D already has anthros... too late in that regard. As for SL, the owner of a Sim can select whether to allow adult content or not. 

And yes, I do have a few merman avatars for visiting undersea regions in SL.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jul 31, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Well, my experience is that it seems too work well, at least for IT projects. I have no idea why it works that way. One of my guesses might be:
> In an ideal world, where it was only you (and your team) making all the shots and developing the software, it would take the original estimated time.




If you're interested, read Walzing With Bears. It will change the way you look at scheduling and time estimation.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 31, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:


> So, D&D needs furries, gambling and porn?



What doesn't?


----------



## jaerdaph (Jul 31, 2008)

You can "meet Christian singles" at EN World now, if you click on the banner ad for it when it comes up.


----------



## WizarDru (Jul 31, 2008)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> For the record, though, I loved Chainmail, and I bought about 2 tubs worth of the minis after it got supplanted by DDM and the prices started to fall.




Heh. That's the problem, though...everybody I know loaded up on the minis when they were on discount.  We bought a lot of them when our local WotC store was closing and giving Buy one, Get one Free deals on virtually everything in the store.




Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Nitpick from a resident German EN Worlder: Schadenfreude.




Nitpick away!    That's what I get for not double-checking my spelling. =)




Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I think that's the real issue - why won't they learn, damn it?! Did they have so many success against the "wisdom" of outsiders and critics that they believe that they can safely ignore them, or do they feel so. (Who knows houw Magic or 3E came into being, and how many people saw this as doomed to fail - I certainly have no idea  ).




I agree.  WotC's biggest mistakes appear to have been made when they ignore their vision get ahead of their practicality.  I don't, for example, consider Everway to be a failure, even though it DID fail in the marketplace.  It was a bold experiment and WotC recognized it as such.  Not every business venture succeeds, especially in a market of creative endeavors where one cannot always guess what the public will adopt or reject.

But if you're going to go against an industry giant or market leader, you need a solid plan.  Magic was a surprise hit, but D&D 3 and D&D 4 were carefully planned out products.  Chainmail was a decent system, but a lot of their marketing plan came down to faulty assumptions and perhaps some hubris brought on by the '_how can we fail_' mentality.

Gleemax's biggest fault, in my eyes, was that it was the answer to a question no one had asked.  Or, more accurately, had already been asked and answered a dozen times already.  If you're going to compete head-to-head with LiveJournal, Facebook and MySpace (among others), as well as ENworld, boardgamegeek.com, Paizo.com, RPG.net and Wizards.com (among others)...well, you need to both get your message out and bring unique content that no one else can bring.  WotC probably had a vision to do that, but a vision doesn't develop code and deliver it in due time.  And I still...STILL...do not know what made Gleemax a compelling choice for me or my gamer friends.  If it was purely the virtue of being a single clearinghouse for my blog, unified forums and some news items...well, I'm sorry guys but that wasn't enough.

The addition of online table games certainly wasn't enough, either.  You've got plenty of THOSE services out there, too.  Why would I go to Gleemax instead of gametableonline.com, daysofwonder.com, Yahoo!, AOL! or any of a ton of free or pay sites to deliver such games?  A few Garfield exclusives is nice, but not enough.

And while I can understand if WotC hired somebody who wasn't up to the task, I can only be SO understanding.  BECAUSE IT HAPPENED TO THEM BEFORE.  'Fool me once, shame on you' and so forth.  WotC has a good website and online presence, so the idea of them moving into the web space SEEMS like a good idea and Gleemax SEEMED feasible.  But WotC appears to really lack in outsourcing management skills, and that's how we get here.

I really WANT the DDI to succeed.   I think the tools in question would be a valuable resource, if implemented well.  But I fear at WotC's ability to actually deliver those tools...and now to deliver them before they become irrelevant to the game at hand.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Aug 1, 2008)

Just so you know the x-powered-by header that says ASP.NET only means the server (or site) has been enabled.  It's not an indication that there is an ASP.NET application running, since IIS will enable that header for all pages on a site if the server and site have been setup to run it.

I can tell WoTC is still using Classic ASP since I got this error this morning going to the home page.



> Microsoft VBScript compilation  error '800a03e9'
> 
> Out of memory
> 
> /default.asp, line 0




ASP.NET serious errors (if the user didn't write error-handling code) will show what's called a Yellow Screen of Death with debugging info (if not locked down like it is by default).  ASP.NET is scalable--MySpace was originally written in ColdFusion but they moved to ASP.NET.  While MySpace has problems I've never seen a "screen of death" error.

I'm really surprised they're still using a classic ASP package.


----------



## AvatarArt (Aug 2, 2008)

*some {hopefully} new info, thanks to Jessica Alba*

Last night I was poking through this thread while flipping around channels & thanks to TNT came across a movie called, 'Into the Blue.'  Needless to say, any time Jessica Alba was on screen I lost my place.  By credit's time I think I ended up  reading this entire discussion at least 3 times over.

While not an expert here by any means ("edition baiting" is a phrase huh?) still have a few things to contribute:


pics of Gleemax MtG cards, courtesy of a GenCon forumite Ticktack
looking for gamers?  Try AccessDenied.net; free & large.  And yes, Baumi, they have profiles for Vienna.  Good luck to you man.
another general gaming community site that hasn't spent a ton of coin yet still manages to work very well is Obsidian Portal.  {_DISCLAIMER_: OP is an affiliate, but I had an account before then}
After being distracted by Ms. Alba, I found myself  going back & forth:  Mike_Lescault earns big points for coming into a tough crowd to share.
At the same time, this is America, where winners are publicly praised & losers are publicly scorned.   (i.e. "You don't win Silver, you lose Gold.") 
So although the design side of me is somewhat sympathetic to him, the gamer-nerd part of me is admittedly gleeful at Gleemax's sudden passing.  

While you might chalk this up to fan boi nature, the remade BatMan films prove that you CAN please the fans plus make piles of coin.  If its good.
Clearly, Gleemax was a case of 'nice concept, very flawed follow-through.'  That is, you can have the best idea in the world, but if you pooch the execution of it, then how cool your idea was just doesn't matter.  A way for D&D players to meetup & share their stuff is needed, but here we have an instance of the self-destruct button being pushed from the start.  Meaning:


If you can't get the damn name right (i.e. Chevy Nova) the rest is a hard sell.  Sure, its kinda geeky to use an inside joke, but aren't most inside jokes only funny on the inside?  To everyone else: lame.  Add to that, the joke itself was, apparently, somewhat self-mocking making me wonder if the joke was understood by the main brains.  Lastly, if you gave me a list of 10 possible names for this project (Mike_Lescault were there other suggestions, choices, possibilities?) for what to call a gaming community, I'd stick 'Gleemax' at #10 losing to 'Nerd Central.'  Seriously, did anyone outside of the people who decided to use this as the name like it?  'cuz I haven't met anyone or read anything that is positive in any way about the name.  Quite the contrary.
If you try to have your cake & eat it too, no one wants to stop by when you offer invitations for dessert.   I get that it was an easy way to scout for new talent, but the whole "whats posted becomes ours" rule  no doubt kept many folks at bay.  I create something & then you own it because I posted at your site?  Guess I'll go elsewhere chum.
In the end, life rolls on.  There are already things out there filling the void left behind in the wake of that brain being stuck in a closet somewhere.

Good gaming to ya,

-Steve G.
Project Manager
AvatarArt

p.s. Mouseferatu, have you considered/are you able to self-publish?  Although it sounds vanity pressish, POD sites work well: ask Monte Cook.


----------

