# The Failure of Gleemax



## MerricB (May 27, 2008)

Wizards of the Coast has had a chequered history when it comes to electronic products and support for its games. Some things have worked very well, such as the Magic: the Gathering site. Other things have been buggy and problematic throughout, but have generally been positively received, such as Magic Online. Then they have vapourware that turned out to not be exactly vapourware but the closest thing possible - incredibly disappointing - such as MasterTools which was eventually released as E-Tools.

And then you have Gleemax.

Gleemax, in conception, is massive. A place for gamers to gather, play and talk about their favourite games, no matter the type. Miniature, Card, Collectable, Board, Role-playing, Electronic... all of the above and more. Unfortunately, big ideas need great people working on them, and that, Gleemax has proven, Wizards doesn't have.

There is a basic problem with promising something to people: they expect you to deliver. If you come from (primarily) the roleplaying side of things, as I do, then Wizards have already started on the wrong foot. (MasterTools!) Oh, and cancelling the D&D magazines Dragon and Dungeon.

A long time ago - a year or more - Wizards announced all the great things it was going to be doing with Gleemax, and then we eagerly awaited the result. Of primary interest to me was the part of Gleemax concerned with blogging, for, as many of you know, I enjoy writing about the games I play. I post articles on EN World and Boardgamegeek, as well as other places. However, it'd be great for me if I could post them all in one place where people who enjoy games could find them.

So, almost a year ago the blogging part of Gleemax went online in an "Alpha" version. Concurrently with this, they switched over the login system of the regular Wizards forums to be uniform over the entire of Gleemax. This was a mistake. The login system wasn't ready, and it was buggy. Worse than buggy. Where before I could happily stay logged into the forums basically forever, Gleemax now instituted a limit on how long I was logged in. And the limit didn't work properly, so I had to log in every time I visited. And I'd be logged out every so often for no reason. My visiting of the Wizards forums basically stopped overnight.

This problem was somewhat fixed, but for a uniform login system it works particularly badly.

Regardless of this, I avidly fell upon the blogging part of Gleemax and started contributing, reposting my blogs from livejournal, session reports from BGG, and occasionally some completely original content.

Now, one of the things that was promised with Gleemax were rolling updates - the development would be an ongoing thing. They'd post a version, fix the obvious bugs, post the next version, fix the bugs in that, and onwards.

Unfortunately, Wizards didn't deliver that. What they did was post an extremely buggy alpha version, and then delay fixing the bugs. To make things worse, the basic blogging functionality of Gleemax wouldn't display posts correctly, nor would it allow people to post replies with thing like, I don't know, line breaks. Oh, and if a post scrolled off the first page, you couldn't find it again.

They did one update, which fixed a few of the most problematic flaws, whilst still leaving a lot of errors (including posts not displaying properly). Then they posted another. And then... nothing. Months and months without updates. Nor were we getting status updates either.

I think they did another update recently. The net result of that was to make it impossible for anyone to view the blogs without getting an error message. Forget about posting new material. And did we get feedback like "Oops, sorry about that guys, we're working to fix it"? No, we didn't.

One of the most important things to do when working on an alpha is to give good feedback to the people who are testing it for you. If they post an error message, you at least need to say, "received that, thanks". Nothing of the sort has occurred for two weeks.

This is competely disastrous for Wizards' image. Heck, if I was someone of power in Hasbro, heads would be rolling. Meanwhile, the amount of bad blood on the Wizards forums is amazing, with many of the competent moderators now gone and people who have contributed a lot to those communities leaving in disgust.

Gleemax? Forget it. Wizards had their chance and they blew it badly.

(originally posted here)


----------



## DaveMage (May 27, 2008)

After a post like that, you may have to change your custom title there, Merric.


----------



## WhatGravitas (May 27, 2008)

Agreed. I was a lurker over there for quite a time, but after their forum re-organisation, their boards are totally useless for me. Especially the Eberron board, that I actually liked a lot. I don't know why they're doing that. And why do they do that to the D&D boards, while they leave the other boards alone (largely)?

Cheers, LT.


----------



## GVDammerung (May 27, 2008)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Wizards of the Coast has had a chequered history when it comes to electronic products and support for its games.  . . .
> There is a basic problem with promising something to people: they expect you to deliver.  . . . Gleemax? Forget it. Wizards had their chance and they blew it badly.




Please allow me to extend warmest greetings from everyone here.  Welcome to the Dark Side!  Or as i like to call it - reality.


----------



## C.W.Richeson (May 27, 2008)

It's basically just the WOTC boards now.  It boggles the mind to consider how much money was wasted on this project.

Even the service itself is unenforced.  The reviews and blogs sections are often just ads (or even random posts), and there's no attempt to encourage user content creation or to help folk find that content.

I don't think it was disastrous for Wizard's image, though.  I'm not sure there were that many folk who really bought into the project from the beginning.


----------



## GVDammerung (May 27, 2008)

C.W.Richeson said:
			
		

> I don't think it was disastrous for Wizard's image, though.  I'm not sure there were that many folk who really bought into the project from the beginning.




Down here in the Ozarks its called - "The sound of a hog farting underwater."  There are a surprising number of Ozarkisms that involve hogs as it happens.


----------



## Shemeska (May 27, 2008)

If they've got Merric disillusioned about Gleemax, they've screwed up something fierce.

And yeah, technical and usability foibles aside which are almost to the point of self-parody, the bad blood on the forums is amazing. Worse than anywhere else online I've ever seen: in the past year we've had WizO's resigning, WizOs getting fired, WizO's living outside the USA getting dumped, a popular forum poster losing VCL status seemingly in retaliation for a single disagreement with Community Management (leading to some folks on the forums now asking for Gamer0 to resign), no feedback on queries to Dragon/Dungeon online, random forum reorganization on short notice, posts censored or moved at whimsy, criticism ignored or dismissed as being 'only a few vocal people', etc.

Heads need to roll and things need to massively get better or they'll be taking a financial bath if it all spills over to impact folks signing up for the DI. To be honest though, I think having had a year to make things better, only to repeatedly get worse and refuse to admit to any errors, it may be past the point of no return. Since Gleemax began we've been told to wait a few months and everything will be better and awesome and functional. I'm still waiting.


----------



## Kzach (May 27, 2008)

I can't believe I'm being more optimistic than Merric.

I'm still holding out hope that they pulled their heads in and focused on in-house alpha's and betas and will release a non-buggy, or at least functional, version come June.

But given we've already established in another thread that WotC's web department is run by committee, that hope is a dim one.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (May 27, 2008)

Lets not forget the DI has delayed the Charactor and Map creators. 

The only hope I see is that on June 6th we will see an entirely new website that has been kept secret so as to surpise us on the rease of 4E. Optomism meter for this on a scale of 1 to 10: 1.5


----------



## MerricB (May 27, 2008)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> If they've got Merric disillusioned about Gleemax, they've screwed up something fierce.




I'm quite happy to keep supporting a product if the design team is talking to me and doing things to fix it. However, after the past few months, I'd have to see wholesale sackings starting from the top (Randy Buehler) before I trust them again to provide a good forum for talking about gaming.

I still hope the DI will be functional.


----------



## hong (May 27, 2008)

All the good programmers in Seattle are working for Microsoft....


----------



## Khairn (May 27, 2008)

Gleemax was the only part of the DDI that I felt had some relevance to me as a GM and gamer.  It was the part I felt had the most potential and the part I was actually excited about.

The pathetic joke that Gleemax has become is a real shame.  But its just another in a long line of examples that illustrates WotC's inability to properly design, implement and launch any kind of electronic support.

The fact that Merric is saying the same thing should speak volumes to WotC.


----------



## MerricB (May 27, 2008)

Devyn said:
			
		

> is a real shame.  But its just another in a long line of examples that illustrates WotC's inability to properly design, implement and launch any kind of electronic support.




The sad thing is that that Wizards has actually been able to properly design, implement and launch electronic support... it's just been for Magic: the Gathering. The website there was great in the latter part of my playing days, it's still great to look up all the rulings and current text on whatever card I'd like.

Magic Online, for all its problems, seems pretty successful. It also seems to have the designers & developers providing regular bug updates and fixes.

It's just on the D&D side of things that Wizards e-support is severely lacking.

Cheers!


----------



## Khairn (May 27, 2008)

MerricB said:
			
		

> It's just on the D&D side of things that Wizards e-support is severely lacking.
> !




I don't think its as cut and dried as that, but I don't really want to quibble about semantics.  So I guess as a company WotC's electronic support for their products has been very inconsistent, but for the D&D brand its been pathetic.  How does that sound?


----------



## JDragon (May 27, 2008)

I wish I could say I was surprised, but well I'm not. :-(

The news that parts of the DDI are being "Delayed" is not shocking and seems to follow the pattern of WotC's inability to actually put out what they promise when it comes to electronic products for D&D.

It should be interesting to see how long it takes for it all to crash and burn.


Anybody got some popcorn?


----------



## GeorgeFields (May 27, 2008)

It's kind of late, but check this out:
http://www.gleesux.synthasite.com/

I was a WizO mod for the WotC chat rooms 6-7 years ago. I have to say the community there today pales in comparison to what it was back then. Several of us worked hard to make it a friendly place for gamers to hang out and make friends. I am one of those believing that GamerZer0 is, at least, partially to blame for the new attitudes there; but that is just an opinion of mine.

I've moved on to other boards and forums. The WotC site, in general, almost never gets visits from me anymore.


----------



## MerricB (May 27, 2008)

Devyn said:
			
		

> I don't think its as cut and dried as that, but I don't really want to quibble about semantics.  So I guess as a company WotC's electronic support for their products has been very inconsistent, but for the D&D brand its been pathetic.  How does that sound?




Fairly accurate. It hasn't been quite _absolutely pathetic_ for D&D, as there has been stuff on the main Wizards D&D site I've liked, but _pathetic_ fits my feelings on the matter at present. 

Cheers!


----------



## Corsair (May 27, 2008)

GeoFFields said:
			
		

> It's kind of late, but check this out:
> http://www.gleesux.synthasite.com/
> 
> I was a WizO mod for the WotC chat rooms 6-7 years ago. I have to say the community there today pales in comparison to what it was back then. Several of us worked hard to make it a friendly place for gamers to hang out and make friends. I am one of those believing that GamerZer0 is, at least, partially to blame for the new attitudes there; but that is just an opinion of mine.
> ...





Speaking as a regular lurker of the CharOp forum as well as an ex-GM for DDO, seeing the interaction between GZ and Autumn recently has been... enlightening.


----------



## A'koss (May 27, 2008)

I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments here, the log-in issues, the mods, the general layout of the site. In particular the new "reorganized" boards have created several large messes. I was especially... annoyed when they dumped all the settings not FR or Ebb into a single board which has just made it an odious mess to wade through now.


----------



## Delta (May 27, 2008)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Magic Online, for all its problems, seems pretty successful. It also seems to have the designers & developers providing regular bug updates and fixes.




I had the impression that Magic Online was developed entirely out-of-house, and that when WOTC brought development in-house, the product took a serious nosedive in quality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_online#Version_2.0


----------



## Relique du Madde (May 27, 2008)

JDragon said:
			
		

> I wish I could say I was surprised, but well I'm not. :-(
> 
> The news that parts of the DDI are being "Delayed" is not shocking and seems to follow the pattern of WotC's inability to actually put out what they promise when it comes to electronic products for D&D.
> 
> ...





DII could only crash and burn if it's engine doesn't seize up after ignition.  I'm predicting that if anything it whimpers and it dies after being revealed due to lack of interest and lack of consumer faith as a result of gleemax's colossal failure.


----------



## Asmor (May 27, 2008)

I was actually pretty happy with Magic Online up until recently. It was stagnating, but it did what it needed to do.

I've only used 3.0 once since it came out, but I just can't bring myself to start Magic Online again. It's just that bad. I realize you can't really judge a new UI from one use, but man, it left an absolutely terrible first impression, and I was really looking forward to it.

As far as Gleemax, I was always pretty cynical about it. As has been noted, WotC has in the past done websites right, so I didn't expect much technical troubles; it just seemed incredibly pretentious and overarching. Looking back, I don't know why exactly I felt that way. <shrug>

The thing that really grates on me is the redesign of the D&D website. I thought their last design was great, and I hate this new one. It's usable, but the last design seemed eminently more so.

I'm still optimistic for the D&D Insider, specifically the tools for creating your character's appearance and character sheet. I'll consider it nothing short of a miracle if the Virtual Tabletop is both available and working as promised before 2009. Mark my words, they'll screw it up.


----------



## MerricB (May 27, 2008)

Delta said:
			
		

> I had the impression that Magic Online was developed entirely out-of-house, and that when WOTC brought development in-house, the product took a serious nosedive in quality.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_online#Version_2.0




Quite likely. 

Cheers!


----------



## MichaelSomething (May 27, 2008)

And this surprises anyone how?  WOTC doing an online system poorly?  Who would have thought!

And some people are not pleased with how WOTC is handling Magic Online.

http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/15924.html

Expecting Gleemax to do well is like expecting a 3.5 Fighter to past Diplomancy checks.


----------



## jdrakeh (May 27, 2008)

Gleemax has definitely been a missed opportunity. And, you're right, Merric -- WotC has an atrocious record with software and web service. At this point, I don't think that they'll lose anything by firing the current group of people responsible for Gleemax and replacing them with folks who know what they're doing.


----------



## MerricB (May 27, 2008)

Asmor said:
			
		

> As far as Gleemax, I was always pretty cynical about it. As has been noted, WotC has in the past done websites right, so I didn't expect much technical troubles; it just seemed incredibly pretentious and overarching. Looking back, I don't know why exactly I felt that way. <shrug>




It's funny - Gleemax would have been great if they'd managed to marry the blogging capabilities of livejournal (or similar) with the game functionality of boardgamegeek.com 

(For those who haven't visited boardgamegeek, do so. It shows how to build a site to provide a lot of information for a diverse bunch of gamers)

And given that other sites have been able to do that... how could they get it wrong?

I've learnt a lot in this past year.


----------



## Relique du Madde (May 27, 2008)

MerricB said:
			
		

> And given that other sites have been able to do that... how could they get it wrong?




"Toomany cooks spoils the pot."


----------



## Ranger REG (May 27, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> All the good programmers in Seattle are working for Microsoft....



You mean the folks that gave us Vista and XP Service Pack 3?

Oh, yeah! Good! Very Good!

*smiley placeholder: rolleyes*


----------



## DarkKestral (May 27, 2008)

((tl;dr version: I'm unhappy with Gleemax and think Wizards has made almost every possible major mistake in their design of Gleemax))

One of the things I disliked about Gleemax was the sudden shift in personality. I suppose it could have been chalked up to the edition change, I think that the style and feel of Gleemax didn't suit the community as a whole. The basic ideas behind Gleemax, which I think could have been described as being "add more of a social network feel to the entire hobby games experience that integrates online play, forums, and blogs" is something I don't think is bad at all, given that for some people, online is the only option, while the others which go online tend to be the enthusiastic fans which are their best word-of-mouth advertisers, and are therefore the two groups most likely to respond well to a well-designed social network. But here's the thing: Wizards seems to have no clue about how to design for the Web, or frankly for computer gaming in general.

But there's an example of a group who "gets" how to design for the web, and how to design a social network in general. Their wide success shows that a social network can actually last, and that it can make tons of money for its creators. It's also a social network that came out of the idea of getting people together that might not live together anymore, though it has since expanded beyond that initial goal. It's called Facebook.

So, believe it or not, Facebook is actually a pretty good comparison to Gleemax, on the basic face of things. And it's pretty illustrative, because it shows clearly how to appeal to a mass audience, and how... not to.

I'll try to run down what I think are basic guidelines that illustrate the difference between a successful and a not-so-successful social network. 

1) Know what you want to be first, and focus on becoming that before trying to expand. 

Online college yearbook (with extra features) is a theme that described Facebook's initial stages well. It also happens to be simple, concise, and one remarkably resistant to feature bloat in the early stages.

As far as Gleemax goes, "Be all, end all portal for an entire mini-industry" was and still is a bad idea, because it has way too large a scope, at least for the present moment. Official community site for Wizards? Decent idea.

2) Maintain direction, but don't alienate the people you're ostensibly trying to get on your service in the process.

While there has been a few flaps at Facebook,but by and large, they've produced a ToS that everyone can live with and a site that does what it promised to do, so it's easy to keep people from making it a muddy mess, because they know what they want from it and they get just that.

On the other hand, the Gleemax ToS is driving away some devs, and many of the core WotC fans hate the general design of the site, so they are alienating the people they need most, and the reorganizations and apparent actions are causing a section of the fandom to believe they're not wanted.

3) Don't emphasize any one group and try to find a design everyone can live with, even if it's somewhat standard. 

Facebook's visual design isn't all that amazing, but given that the groups have such disparate tastes and interests, it does remarkably well at providing a default nearly everyone can live with. It is also something that won't look too out of place if seen at the office, an important consideration for many.

On the other hand, Gleemax displays a marked habit of WotC to favor it's CCG unit, deserved or not. The name comes out of an in-joke that almost no one outside of the company would get unless they keep up with Magic intensively. It is also a design that completely dismisses those of us who don't like to go to MySpace style websites that tend towards the visual assault side of things, or who can't because they are at work.

4) Keep the skeleton of the design simple and don't release until it's done. 

Facebook has kept the basic features simple; photosharing, group features, a basic communications thing to keep up with people. They kept it in dev until those features worked well and weren't all that buggy.

Too many different development angles going on leads to missed ship dates and muddled, buggy designs. Example: the Gleemax alpha. It's basically the forums + a really bad blogging engine right now, buggy as all get out, and any further development will make the problems there even worse. Plus, the alpha's inflicted on everyone, rather than a small few (like say the dev team + a few chosen outsiders under NDA) like it should have been. There is still attempts at adding more features, but I suspect they'll just make the whole buggier and buggier. I'd like to see stability addressed before more extraneous features are added.

5) Don't screw with a working formula unless you have a replacement lined up that is obviously better in comparison.

Facebook's kept the core the same, and added features to make the entire whole work better. It has never totally changed things up, even though it has occasionally made minor changes to expand the total possible audience.

Wizards decided to cancel a contract with the producer of a set of relatively popular set of mags while Wizards was waiting on a new product to come out, and before they had provided a clear path to an "upgrade" for many while also canceling them in such a way as to do maximum PR damage to themselves. They also changed the formula behind the replacement to those mags, so much of the fanbase decided that the new formula wasn't for them. They then released the buggy new product that was the ostensible replacement while everyone was still outraged. And then proceeded to not fix that.


Needless to say, I'm totally disenchanted with Gleemax as Wizards has presented it. This is perhaps not entirely separate from any considerations of D&D edition, but it is a significant barrier even if I reverse my position on 4e from where I am now (my skepticism is probably not going to change much) particularly as Wizards has clearly shown themselves basically incapable of presenting a proper online offering in the past and is bungling themselves up in the present.


----------



## Ranger REG (May 27, 2008)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> Gleemax has definitely been a missed opportunity. And, you're right, Merric -- WotC has an atrocious record with software and web service.



Not to mention films. When it comes to outside of their own trade specialty and medium (i.e., pen-n-paper RPG), they have absolutely no idea who to look for.


----------



## DarkKestral (May 27, 2008)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Not to mention films. When it comes to outside of their own trade specialty and medium (i.e., pen-n-paper RPG), they have absolutely no idea who to look for.




You got that right. I suspect the only reason they didn't get Uwe Boll to direct a D&D film is because he probably didn't think the property to be worth enough in possible tax writeoffs to justify it.

Otherwise, I'm sure that's who they would have tapped, given their atrocious film history... (what? 2-3 different films, all flops?)


----------



## Cergorach (May 27, 2008)

I just tried to login to Gleemax, I get an error page twice while trying top login. Finally I suspect that I might not have migrated over my account yet, so I let the thing check it, I've been migrated over already. I go back to the login page, but it's not my login page, it's my account details page... So now I'm logged on, and I want to proceed to My Page => Personal Page, I get another error page. The best thing about these error pages is the message "I recommend that you close your browser and log back in.", as if the error has something to do with my browser, and closing it will help somehow. Trying to go to the community pages gives me another error, trying to go to the forums gives me a redirection error. I'm using Opera btw., but that shouldn't generate these kinds of problems. I'm trying IE now, and that gives me the same kind of errors. I'm kind of logged in now in Opera, but now even the front page won't load without going to an error page...

Folks that can't make their own websites should stick with frameworks that don't have these problems. Folks that can't get frameworks to behave properly shouldn't be in the web design/programming business.

Not to mention that I absolutely hate the visual design of Gleemax! I kind of like the green bubbly background, even the logo design is good (a bit retro), I even like the little cute brain in a bottle. But the silver/grey/blue interface is what ruins the experience for me, it just doesn't fit with the green (IMHO). This give the whole site a completely impersonal feel, what a gaming site shouldn't have.


----------



## Khairn (May 27, 2008)

DarkKestral said:
			
		

> Wizards decided to cancel a contract with the producer of a set of relatively popular set of mags while Wizards was waiting on a new product to come out, and before they had provided a clear path to an "upgrade" for many while also canceling them in such a way as to do maximum PR damage to themselves. They also changed the formula behind the replacement to those mags, so much of the fanbase decided that the new formula wasn't for them. They then released the buggy new product that was the ostensible replacement while everyone was still outraged. And then proceeded to not fix that.




Amen.

But let me ask you all a question.  Do you think WotC is even listening at this point, and that any amount of BMC'ing (B*tch, Moan, Complain) on our part will accomplish anything?   These complaints have been voiced for months now without any acknowledgement from WotC.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 27, 2008)

Devyn said:
			
		

> Amen.
> 
> But let me ask you all a question.  Do you think WotC is even listening at this point, and that any amount of BMC'ing (B*tch, Moan, Complain) on our part will accomplish anything?   These complaints have been voiced for months now without any acknowledgement from WotC.



That's a good question. But in this case, I definitely think it might still make sense to "BMC". The DDI and Gleemax are something that are supposed to stay around for a while, and unlike core books already in print or shipping, they can and will be changed over time. 

ENWorld is definitely high on WotC list to gather user/player feedback, considering that several designers and The Rouse are posting here. 

An even better question might not be if WotC is listening, but if we will still care when they finally implement the changes? They are (self-inflicted) in the awkward position of having to hurry to fix things, and still make the fixes good enough to regain the trust (or at least hope) of the disappointed.


----------



## Relique du Madde (May 27, 2008)

You forget that no matter what, even if WoTC is listening to the BMC, they are unable to cannot come out and say "We really screwed the pooch on <insert blunder>" because once they do they would destroy even more consumer confidence in their products, services, and decisions.  All they are basically able to do is say, "We decided to improve X by doing Y and in the process we made X become a whole lot X-ier because the previous version of X was broke and flawed!"


----------



## Staffan (May 27, 2008)

GeoFFields said:
			
		

> I was a WizO mod for the WotC chat rooms 6-7 years ago. I have to say the community there today pales in comparison to what it was back then.



I used to hang out at the TSRO/WIZO chat all the time back in the day, but I have to say that the quality started dropping long before Mike Lescault came on the scene. I left about two years ago, because most of the people I used to know there didn't come by anymore. The straw that broke the camel's back in my case was that they got a new chat client that was highly inferior to the old one (for one thing, if you switched windows/tabs and then came back, you would have to click on the text input bar again to write), but I had become increasingly disillusioned before then.

That said, it appears that Gleemax/D&DI is suffering from the same problem MasterTools did - it's trying to do too much at once. I mean, I remember reading the progress reports on Master Tools, with the developers saying things like "Oh, today we recorded sounds for the beholder figure." I think most of the people on the mailing list thought "What? Sound effects? Give us a character generator and maybe a dungeon designer, not a frickin' video game."


----------



## ShadowDenizen (May 27, 2008)

I'll just agree with everything that Merric originally posted.

WotC made this an epic fail; they touted the DI as a "Conerstone of the 4E experience", yet we've seen next to no progress on that side of things.

Interesting how things change in the course of a year; after the 4E launch, everyone was buzzing about the online components, and what it would offer; now, with the 4E books nearly here, the online component doesn't seem to be a blip on the radar, for the most part.

While I think an online character/NPC generator would be a huge boon (especially for the new generation that will be checking out 4E!!), I think D+D could have suvived without this push for online presence, honsestly.  And this would have kept tons of gamers happy with the continued physical presence of Dungeon and Dragon magazines. (I confess I only look at the online versions sporadically.)


----------



## Herremann the Wise (May 27, 2008)

Backing up Shemeska's post - if Gleemax has lost Merric (and not just lost him, but severely pissed him off), then someone has dropped the ball big time.

Merric, if control was in your hands (and that is truly not a ridiculous idea), what do you think needs to happen and in what order?
What can WotC do to win you back?

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## JohnRTroy (May 27, 2008)

I think it's a classic case of a company trying to "do it themselves" rather than either outsource or use experts.

I just would like to know if they have hired any professional web designers out there.  And software developers, project managers, etc.  Maybe seek out a pro from one of those free games online who've done this before.  You can tell when bands, actors, and other people have let friends setup web sites instead of having professionals do it.  And that's just from the design perspective, when you get into forums, wikis, AJAX tools, and customized software it gets a lot more complicated.

I have a feeling Wizards wouldn't spend a lot of money on this, or try to give it to a game designer looking to "try new things".  My best guess is that its too costly.  The salaries for programmers, good web designers, etc, are I believe more expensive than for the game designers at WoTC, so I can see it seeming unpalatable to them.  And it's dangerous to outsource programmers for this task, since if this is part of your "core competency", you shouldn't depend on people outside your firm for these tasks.


----------



## DarkKestral (May 27, 2008)

Devyn said:
			
		

> Amen.
> 
> But let me ask you all a question.  Do you think WotC is even listening at this point, and that any amount of BMC'ing (B*tch, Moan, Complain) on our part will accomplish anything?   These complaints have been voiced for months now without any acknowledgement from WotC.




The heck if I know. I don't work for WotC. I'd just like to see them fix what I see as the mistakes they can now fix: work doubletime on getting their code (both on the web side and for the electronic game products) stable and bug-free before adding features, and work on building back a sense of community. Not much else they can do at this point.


----------



## Cabled (May 27, 2008)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> You mean the folks that gave us Vista and XP Service Pack 3?
> 
> Oh, yeah! Good! Very Good!
> 
> *smiley placeholder: rolleyes*




Though I am no fan of Vista, there is a large difference between software which does not WORK, and software you do not LIKE.  Vista does largely work...which is actually its problem, and a whole other kettle of fish.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 27, 2008)

Oddly enough, Gleemax is performing exactly how I, and many others, expected it to -- like the 4e "Really, it's going to be an OGL, but it's a GSL, and if you use it don't use the OGL" is performing.

Which is to say, it fails to satisfy on every count.

RC


----------



## hong (May 27, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Oddly enough, Gleemax is performing exactly how I, and many others, expected it to -- like the 4e "Really, it's going to be an OGL, but it's a GSL, and if you use it don't use the OGL" is performing.
> 
> Which is to say, it fails to satisfy on every count.
> 
> RC



 Indeed, Gleemax is 4E's most magical sword.


----------



## Orryn Emrys (May 27, 2008)

Hmmm... until encountering this thread (well, actual Merric's LiveJournal, but it's the same post...), I thought my difficulties with Gleemax were something of an isolated thing.  I just assumed that everything was ticking along normally, and that an official release would eventually hit the web without the bugs and such.  As it is, I really never log in over there unless I'm trying to read some content that I can't otherwise get to.

I find myself wondering how much damage this kind of discussion can do to their reputation amongst similiarly-minded folk who might otherwise be unaware of their apparent technical ineptitude.  (I, for one, tend to respect Merric's opinion a great deal, for example.)  Particularly when one of the major components of our 4E expectations is specifically tied to the company's online presence.


----------



## Styracosaurus (May 27, 2008)

The loss of hardcopy magazine support for D&D (as a brand) is a tragedy.  Slight bumps in content could sway readership.  WotC would have been better served to adjust the paper magazine to its needs rather than ditch it for a fairytale.


----------



## TerraDave (May 27, 2008)

The Failure of Gleemax?







THE FAILURE OF GLEEMAX!​






*THE FAILURE OF GLEEMAX!!!!!!!!!!!!!*



Sigh. There are still days that all, and I mean all, I get are error messages. But I don't have those days as often, since I don't bother as often.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (May 27, 2008)

Corsair said:
			
		

> Speaking as a regular lurker of the CharOp forum as well as an ex-GM for DDO, seeing the interaction between GZ and Autumn recently has been... enlightening.




Wow. I had no idea all that was going on. I'd been posting less and less often to the Wizards boards of late (largely due to dissatisfaction with what I've seen of 4E), but I was extremely miffed with the recent reorganization of the boards that saw the one forum I consistently posted to (Mystara) lumped in with all the other "non-published" worlds- some of whom (like Dark Sun and DL) had enormous amounts of posts- more than FR and Eberron, or at least comparable (Mystara had recently risen to #3 there, as well).

After seeing some of the "behind the scenes" drama... I guess I can't say I'm surprised. Just even more disappointed in WotC.


----------



## Festivus (May 27, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> All the good programmers in Seattle are working for Microsoft....




Uh, have you seen Vista?


----------



## hong (May 27, 2008)

Festivus said:
			
		

> Uh, have you seen Vista?



 All the BAD programmers in Seattle are ALSO working for Microsoft....


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 27, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> All the BAD programmers in Seattle are ALSO working for Microsoft....





I've seen Vista, and I like it. 
But don't trust me, despite being a professional software developer with a university degree and everything, I did never use Linux at home. (I own a Mac, though). And I am developing my software with Microsoft Technology (.NET, Visual Studio). 

Oh, and off course I could afford buying a relatively high end PC, so the performance slowdowns are not a problem at home. 
Unfortunately, at work I have a Notebook that's a little bit to weak for all the stuff I am doing with it. Though after upgrading to 2 GB (from 512 MB to 1 GB to 2 GB) RAM it works okay. 

Unfortunately, I am afraid many of the problems people face with Vista are problems developers not working for Microsoft are responsible for. Ignoring standards and guidelines, building faulty drivers... (Not that a few of these things aren't self-inflicted in the end. If M$ was enforcing its guidelines stronger from the beginning, the transition to 4E Vista would have been a lot smoother)

[/off-topic]


----------



## Nicephorus (May 27, 2008)

This isn't too shocking.  It often happens when those in charge don't really understand the particular field or subfield but try to push along on their own.  For example, if a manager doesn't know anything about web programming, it's hard for them to tell if a potential employee really knows their stuff or if they're just bluffing to get a job.  So, they wind up with a mediocre bunch of employees.  Then they don't know how to manage the project and  guide it with the key goals in mind so the programmers wind up each doing their own thing.  

The hobby industry has had this happen many times.  Avalon Hill never managed to make an in-house electronic product that was successful.  ADB (makers of Star Fleet Battles) has had trouble making a Trek RPG because neither of the two main bosses ever plays rpgs.  WOTC has had a few failures in the past.

It's not just Gleemax.  The main Wizards website isn't as useful as it was at the time of  the 3.0 launch.  There isn't as much content and it's harder to find.  You also have to login just to view free material.


----------



## Rallek (May 27, 2008)

I used to post on the WotC board on occasion, before the days of Gleemax. 

I went to check the board one day, got directed to gleemax, tried to log on, error screen. Tried again... error screen. Checked to see if my info had been transfered from the old boards, and you guessed it, error screen. After more of the same with all of my attempts to navigate the site, I pointed my browser elsewhere.


Never went back.



Happy Gaming


----------



## Zaukrie (May 27, 2008)

Welcome to the team Merric. WotC has never pulled off a successful D&D technical innovation, and I don't expect them to any time soon. If they can't even manage to do message boards and blogs well (pretty much universal, easy technology at this point), I'm not sure how anyone trusts them to pull off DDI. Under promise, over deliver, does not seem to be in their vernacular when it comes to IT. The whole Gleemax thing was messed up from the beginning, what with its marketing campaign launching while they were still in "alpha" (personally, I think they were in beta or final, but then realized how bad things were, and called it alpha). 

WotC has made many, many mistakes in the IT world, and I don't trust them to do it better any time soon. They couldn't even be bothered to bring the Dragon and Dungeon content into a usable pdf....I wish Paizo still owned the rights to publish those mags.

I'll look at the free DDI, but I have no expectations they'll deliver. Heck, KotS is THE launch product for their new edition, an edition that is supposed to be well supported on-line, and they have posted two mediocre articles in support. Where are the things like additional encounters, more maps, more rules supplements, more of anything much at all? I thought this edition was going to be supported on line, so far, KotS makes it look like more of the same, and that's not good.

*edited for bad spelling


----------



## DaveMage (May 27, 2008)

Orryn Emrys said:
			
		

> I find myself wondering how much damage this kind of discussion can do to their reputation amongst similiarly-minded folk who might otherwise be unaware of their apparent technical ineptitude.  (I, for one, tend to respect Merric's opinion a great deal, for example.)  Particularly when one of the major components of our 4E expectations is specifically tied to the company's online presence.




If they get it up and running and working, it won't matter how much complaining is going on now.  People will forget technical problems of the past once they've been solved.

The social issues, though, (if true) may cause some people to leave and not return.

I have a feeling that WotC subscribes to the belief that you don't worry when people complain - you worry when they stop buying.  Vote with your money, people.


----------



## GeorgeFields (May 27, 2008)

Staffan said:
			
		

> I used to hang out at the TSRO/WIZO chat all the time back in the day, but I have to say that the quality started dropping long before Mike Lescault came on the scene. I left about two years ago, because most of the people I used to know there didn't come by anymore. The straw that broke the camel's back in my case was that they got a new chat client that was highly inferior to the old one (for one thing, if you switched windows/tabs and then came back, you would have to click on the text input bar again to write), but I had become increasingly disillusioned before then.




Yeah, the new chat client kept me away from there for quite a long time. Even after I started going back, it wasn't often.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (May 27, 2008)

Nicephorus said:
			
		

> It's not just Gleemax.  The main Wizards website isn't as useful as it was at the time of  the 3.0 launch.  There isn't as much content and it's harder to find.  You also have to login just to view free material.




Sadly you don't. Just one more problem with their website is that the security can be breached with almost no effort at all. And were not talking needing hacking tools either.




			
				Zaukrie said:
			
		

> The whole Gleemax thing was messed up from the beginning, what with its marketing campaign launching while they were still in "alpha" (personally, I think they were in beta or final, but then realized how bad things were, and called it alpha).




The marketing failures go back even farther than that. When first announced and heavily promoted (remember the foam brains) they didn't even have a website that related to the announcement. It took a month for them to change the website enough to acknowledge what was coming so that other people showing up wouldn't be totally confused, and then another 3 or 4 months to even release the Alpha. The Alpha was released because marketing jumped the gun one year before they should have.


----------



## SavageRobby (May 27, 2008)

Waitaminutestopthepressesholdthephoneareyouserious? Wizards barfed on releasing promised technical innovation? <gasp> 

Color me stunned.
























Or not.


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 27, 2008)

I'm withholding judgement 'till I see the finished product.

But optimism is not very high on this.


----------



## WhatGravitas (May 27, 2008)

MerricB said:
			
		

> The sad thing is that that Wizards has actually been able to properly design, implement and launch electronic support... it's just been for Magic: the Gathering. The website there was great in the latter part of my playing days, it's still great to look up all the rulings and current text on whatever card I'd like.



To be fair, they haven't changed the structure main page for years. And it shows its age, especially when you look at modern web design - something WotC *should* be able to afford. But I still want daily articles for D&D like for Magic.

(By the way: You're really *angry* about that, no? Because your first two post in this thread lack your trademark "Cheers!"... NOT a good sign!)

Cheers, LT.


----------



## cr0m (May 27, 2008)

FWIW, Gleemax was not developed in house. And I don't think anyone at WotC is under the illusion that it's anything but a complete disaster.


----------



## haakon1 (May 27, 2008)

I'm feeling sorry for WOTC . . . 

Perhaps they should have allied with Yahoo, MSN, IAC, or anybody else who knows the web.  Or even AOL -- D&D could be buried in their next to Movie Fone and probably would actually work.  

Also, Gleemax has always struck me as a silly name.  TheDungeon.com or something would make more sense to me, but that's probably taken or would be blocked for sounding fishy.


----------



## keterys (May 27, 2008)

Gleemax is definitely not going as well as would be hoped, and the blogs portion of the site is just not considered as important as other offerings... like D&D Insider.

I suspect that it would have been a good PR move to freeze the blogs some time ago and just say 'Okay, looks like we have all the data we're going to get out of this Alpha, and we can't dedicate resources because they're all (more than) tied up in getting Magic Online v3, D&D Insider, and the Gleemax Games Portal launched. We'll be back late in the year with a Beta launch!'

At least, that's been my theory every time I've suggested it or a variant thereof. 

I do still have hope that it will eventually be a good service. I'd point to the Gleemax Games alpha as something that has updated several times, offers good play experience, has been very stable and fun for me. - it may just take a long while.

Personally, I'd expect to see more major improvements on blogs after the D&D Game Table is live, so that people can link their characters, adventures, etc from that to their blog.


----------



## reutbing0 (May 27, 2008)

cr0m said:
			
		

> FWIW, Gleemax was not developed in house. And I don't think anyone at WotC is under the illusion that it's anything but a complete disaster.




Source please? I was under the impression that the community/blogging aspect was developed in house. I really wonder why they didn't just use something like Movable Type Community Solution. Why build something entirely new (and crappy)?


----------



## keterys (May 27, 2008)

Radiant Machine is the company that worked on it.

As an aside, in this day and age, asking someone else to provide a source probably takes as long as just googling it


----------



## reutbing0 (May 27, 2008)

keterys said:
			
		

> Radiant Machine is the company that worked on it.
> 
> As an aside, in this day and age, asking someone else to provide a source probably takes as long as just googling it




I did google, but it's much easier to find if you know the name of the company that's developing it for WOTC .


----------



## WhatGravitas (May 27, 2008)

keterysI do still have hope that it will eventually be a good service. I'd point to the [url="http://www.gleemaxgames" said:
			
		

> Gleemax Games[/url] alpha as something that has updated several times, offers good play experience, has been very stable and fun for me. - it may just take a long while.



You you know what just happened? I clicked the link and got an "unexpected error", with Gleemax ploclaiming it its demise wasn't going to happen yet. Well, on the second try, it worked.

What still boggles me is that they pushed it out so early. This either means they have severely underestimated the amount of work you need to get it running, which implies a lack of expertise.

Which isn't bad, but you shouldn't show off your lack of know-how. Or at least not snag our print magazines for the DDI, until everything is running.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## timbannock (May 27, 2008)

Rallek said:
			
		

> I used to post on the WotC board on occasion, before the days of Gleemax.
> 
> I went to check the board one day, got directed to gleemax, tried to log on, error screen. Tried again... error screen. Checked to see if my info had been transfered from the old boards, and you guessed it, error screen. After more of the same with all of my attempts to navigate the site, I pointed my browser elsewhere.
> 
> ...





I swear that's what I was about to write word-for-word.

Gleemax didn't sound all that bad to me until I tried to use it.  Never bothered to go through that mess again.


----------



## keterys (May 27, 2008)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> You you know what just happened? I clicked the link and got an "unexpected error", with Gleemax ploclaiming it its demise wasn't going to happen yet. Well, on the second try, it worked.




Huh. I've never had any problems at all getting there. Maybe the redirect kills it and I shoul switch to using this link
instead when talking to others. If anyone gets a totally expected error from that one, can you let me know?

I certainly would have done this entire project differently if I'd been in charge. Then again, I also think that if I were working for 30 minutes a week on the site that I could have made people happier. Something as simple as an update to the unexpected error page listing common reasons it fires and giving you links on that page (and preferably a link to the url you entered) would actually have been _HUGE_. And really, less than 1 man hour to do.


----------



## Shemeska (May 27, 2008)

What I found interesting/disturbing was that the company tasked to design Gleemax and DDI... those were their first ever projects. They didn't exist as a design studio before August 2007, and have no prior projects under their name.

Oh boy. I'm not surprised to see things seemingly stuck in development hell a year later.


----------



## Garnfellow (May 27, 2008)

*John Hammond:* All major theme parks have had delays! When they opened Disneyland in 1956, nothing worked -- nothing!


----------



## Asmor (May 27, 2008)

Festivus said:
			
		

> Vista?




Well it's far from error-free, Vista's problems stem more from design decisions than anything else.

Really, not being able to listen to music and be on the internet at the same time is a feature, not a bug.


----------



## Obrysii (May 27, 2008)

I was finished over there when a certain "community manager" began making very, very bad managerial decisions - and began to silence people who spoke out against him.

The re-org hasn't helped much. It's eliminated any desire of mine to post there.


----------



## dmccoy1693 (May 27, 2008)

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> I think it's a classic case of a company trying to "do it themselves" rather than either outsource or use experts.





I agree, but with 1 modification:  I think 90+% of WotC's problems as of late stem from trying to do to much in to short of a time and not enough focus.  

Failure to get the new license/SRD out when they said they would.
Launch eDungeon/eDragon and have it fall far short of its print predocessor.
Make a website a central location for all gamers to gather that doesn't work properly.
Start an online gaming site that (from the previews I've seen) displayed a quality of graphics that were the standard 10+ years ago.  
All while launching a new edition.  If they started off with launching a new online site that could be the "home of all gamers" and perfected it *then* launched eDungeon/eDragon and got it up to high quality standards, *then* playtested the new edition in secret and *then finally* wrote the new license and SRD while preparing the online game and brought it up to WoW quality, things would have gone alot smoother.  They could have had the license/SRD to publishers back in September/October like originally promised and Wizards would have been hailed for their quality orginization and superb handling of the whole 4E launch.


----------



## cr0m (May 27, 2008)

Thanks for googling for me. I'm at work and didn't have time to link in my post.

The Gleemax alpha was a huge failure--in development and managing the expectations and subsequent complaints of the community. But the nice thing is that it's not as though they're stuck with the developers.


----------



## Alzrius (May 27, 2008)

dmccoy1693 said:
			
		

> I agree, but with 1 modification:  I think 90+% of WotC's problems as of late stem from trying to do to much in to short of a time and not enough focus.
> 
> Failure to get the new license/SRD out when they said they would.
> Launch eDungeon/eDragon and have it fall far short of its print predocessor.
> ...




Indeed. The failure of Gleemax is just part of the great pooch-humping that is (the launch of) 4E. 

It's almost hard to believe that WotC has screwed up so much of their recent undertakings, and so badly at that. I'm almost inclined to believe that there's something going on that we're not privy to, which is forcing them to move faster than they're comfortable with, and make mistakes in the rush. Maybe in ten years or so we'll be hearing about how Hasbro was about to kill D&D unless WotC produced a near-impossible level of profits, forcing a new edition out the door with a lot of bells and whistles.

For me, as long as we still have the OGL and EN World, things are covered. I never once went to Gleemax, since this place already meets all of my online gaming community needs.


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 27, 2008)

> John Hammond: All major theme parks have had delays! When they opened Disneyland in 1956, nothing worked -- nothing!




What do you call a blind dinosaur?

What do you call a blind dinosaur's dog?

What do you call a website designed by a blind dinosaur?


----------



## Scribble (May 27, 2008)

Not sure I'm ready to call Gleemax a "failure" just yet...

Once they remove the Alpha tag, if it's still suffering from the listed problems, and such then yeah.

Certainly the alpha could be handled better, but a failure? Not just yet.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (May 27, 2008)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Gleemax? Forget it.




I don't think the WotC standards are as high and exact as your standards. It's probably a success by WotC and Hasbro standards.


----------



## cr0m (May 27, 2008)

It ain't.


----------



## Aeolius (May 27, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> What do you call a website designed by a blind dinosaur?




"Spared no expense."


----------



## Ghendar (May 28, 2008)

Never thought I'd see the day when Merric would make a post like that.


----------



## WhatGravitas (May 28, 2008)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> Indeed. The failure of Gleemax is just part of the great pooch-humping that is (the launch of) 4E.



I start to think that the launch of 4E isn't a pooch-humping. Seriously, why do ads and stuff now? Only dedicated gamers (as we on ENWorld) will be interested in it - and we get the infos by cribbing all notes, posts, whatever together. That's sort of fun.

The real ads should start mid-July or something like that - why? Because then we have another mini set out, the character sheets, the DMG screen, another adventure and soon the basic game.

That's what you need for a full-fledged marketing campaign - a more or less fledged-out product line. The pure corebooks are more aimed at us, who already know how to play a RPG.

But this doesn't help with Gleemax.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## GeorgeFields (May 28, 2008)

Scribble said:
			
		

> Not sure I'm ready to call Gleemax a "failure" just yet...




I was before it was launched


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 28, 2008)

Relique du Madde said:
			
		

> You forget that no matter what, even if WoTC is listening to the BMC, they are unable to cannot come out and say "We really screwed the pooch on <insert blunder>" because once they do they would destroy even more consumer confidence in their products, services, and decisions.  All they are basically able to do is say, "We decided to improve X by doing Y and in the process we made X become a whole lot X-ier because the previous version of X was broke and flawed!"



No, once they start an honest dialogue about what's happened in the past and what they hope to do about it, they regain consumer confidence.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 28, 2008)

haakon1 said:
			
		

> I'm feeling sorry for WOTC . . .
> 
> Perhaps they should have allied with Yahoo, MSN, IAC, or anybody else who knows the web.  Or even AOL -- D&D could be buried in their next to Movie Fone and probably would actually work.



Or they could have done the reasonable and cost-effective thing, and just licensed off-the-shelf technology like Wordpress, vBulletin and MediaWiki. Then they'd have millions of people available to help them -- _for free_ -- if they ran into any problems. There are also available platforms for business whiteboards -- essentially the virtual tabletop, without specialized tools bolted onto it.

Recreating the wheel was the problem.


----------



## SavageRobby (May 28, 2008)

WotC: We have top men working on it now.
Gamers: Who?
WotC: Top ... men.


----------



## Khairn (May 28, 2008)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> No, once they start an honest dialogue about what's happened in the past and what they hope to do about it, they regain consumer confidence.




What's surprising about this thread is that both 4E fans and those less pleased with the arrival of the new edition are all (or at least vast majority posting here) agreeing to the same thing.  This type of unanimity hasn't been seen in a really long time.

A year ago last March, if you were to ask me to list the "best" RPG companies around when it came to overall quality, support, credibility and a solid connection with their customers ... I would have said ...

1- WotC
2- White Wolf
3- Paizo
4- Malhavoc
5- Goodman Games

Today that list is ...

1- Paizo
2- White Wolf
3- Goodman Games
4- Iron Crown Enterprises
5- Malhavoc
(with very honorable mention to Columbia Games, Pinnacle and Adamant)

I know this is a very subjective list, but I was really surprised at how far WotC had fallen for me.


----------



## FATDRAGONGAMES (May 28, 2008)

SavageRobby said:
			
		

> WotC: We have top men working on it now.
> Gamers: Who?
> WotC: Top ... men.




ROTFLMAO!


----------



## Vrecknidj (May 28, 2008)

Fourth edition, the revised minis rules, Gleemax, the "digital initiative," all seem like ways of starting over.

I don't mind that the game evolves.  But, this "revolution not evolution" approach has been pretty dismal.  I like that the folks on the inside feel a need to improve their product, to keep things fresh, to give gamers something new.

I don't think that the best way to do that was to commit suicide first.

Dave


----------



## Steely Dan (May 28, 2008)

As we speak the Gleemax D&D forums are screwed (have been for hours – cannot view threads)…


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (May 28, 2008)

Someone here mentioned that, on the WOTC D&D boards (?) there has been an embitterness amongst the posters?
  What exactly was meant by that statement?  Anyone? 

  I haven't been to the WOTC boards in a long time.
  When I was there, there was arguments and opinions and emotion, yes.  How are things different?  What has happened?


----------



## nothing to see here (May 28, 2008)

DarkKestral said:
			
		

> ((tl;dr version: I'm unhappy with Gleemax and think Wizards has made almost every possible major mistake in their design of Gleemax))
> 
> One of the things I disliked about Gleemax was the sudden shift in personality. I suppose it could have been chalked up to the edition change, I think that the style and feel of Gleemax didn't suit the community as a whole. The basic ideas behind Gleemax, which I think could have been described as being "add more of a social network feel to the entire hobby games experience that integrates online play, forums, and blogs" is something I don't think is bad at all, given that for some people, online is the only option, while the others which go online tend to be the enthusiastic fans which are their best word-of-mouth advertisers, and are therefore the two groups most likely to respond well to a well-designed social network. But here's the thing: Wizards seems to have no clue about how to design for the Web, or frankly for computer gaming in general.
> 
> ...




In my past jobs I've provided strategic advice to groups interested in maximizing the use of social netowrk capital and I must say, this is one of the better summaries of social-network design I have ever read.  Well done! (DarkKestral, not Wizards!)


----------



## DarkKestral (May 28, 2008)

nothing to see here said:
			
		

> In my past jobs I've provided strategic advice to groups interested in maximizing the use of social netowrk capital and I must say, this is one of the better summaries of social-network design I have ever read.  Well done! (DarkKestral, not Wizards!)




Thanks.


----------



## Gruns (May 28, 2008)

*As expected.*

I was pretty sure the whole thing was going to suck when I heard they were actually going to call it Gleemax...
Is this name 100% set in stone? Is anyone at WotC listening? It's not too late to change the name to something I'm not embarrased to mention to a potential new gamer...

Gruns


----------



## TerraDave (May 28, 2008)

dmccoy1693 said:
			
		

> I agree, but with 1 modification:  I think 90+% of WotC's problems as of late stem from trying to do to much in to short of a time and not enough focus.
> 
> Failure to get the new license/SRD out when they said they would.
> Launch eDungeon/eDragon and have it fall far short of its print predocessor.
> ...




It does seem a _bit_ ambitious. (A new version of Star Wars and the Minis-game were also in there). 

The closest thing I can think of to what gleemax is trying to be is:

www.boardgamegeek.com

And the comparison is just sort of embarising. Well actually, there is this other site, which makes gleemax look just about as sad.


----------



## MerricB (May 29, 2008)

TerraDave said:
			
		

> It does seem a _bit_ ambitious. (A new version of Star Wars and the Minis-game were also in there).
> 
> The closest thing I can think of to what gleemax is trying to be is:
> 
> ...




You'll see that comparison in my original post. BGG leaves Gleemax (and EN World) for dead when it comes to reviews, discussion, etc. of individual products.

Yes, EN World as well. IMO, EN World is dysfunctional when it comes to the review system and has been for a while. I hope EN World 2 makes it a lot better.

Cheers!


----------



## JoeGKushner (May 29, 2008)

MerricB said:
			
		

> You'll see that comparison in my original post. BGG leaves Gleemax (and EN World) for dead when it comes to reviews, discussion, etc. of individual products.
> 
> Yes, EN World as well. IMO, EN World is dysfunctional when it comes to the review system and has been for a while. I hope EN World 2 makes it a lot better.
> 
> Cheers!




I agree. It's sad that my first review of a 4th ed product will be at RPG.net but hey, it's way outta my hands.


----------



## Aeolius (May 29, 2008)

A brief update, regarding chatting at Gleemax aka wizards.com/chat:

"Our chat solution is running on outdated, unsupported hardware and software. Due to a server migration, there is a high likelihood that it will break within about a week. We don't have any resources to devote to a new chat option right now because they are all working on our highest priority projects, including D&Di and Magic Online. "

   More HERE


----------



## Shemeska (May 29, 2008)

Aeolius said:
			
		

> A brief update, regarding chatting at Gleemax aka wizards.com/chat:
> 
> "Our chat solution is running on outdated, unsupported hardware and software. Due to a server migration, there is a high likelihood that it will break within about a week. We don't have any resources to devote to a new chat option right now because they are all working on our highest priority projects, including D&Di and Magic Online. "
> 
> More HERE




No surprise there...


----------



## Treebore (May 29, 2008)

There are a great many of us who predicted Wizards would fall flat on their faces with the DI. I was one of them.

I'll forgive them if they give Dungeon and Dragon back to Paizo to publish.


----------



## dmccoy1693 (May 29, 2008)

Treebore said:
			
		

> I'll forgive them if they give Dungeon and Dragon back to Paizo to publish.




Frankly, I don't think Paizo would accept.  I don't think they enjoyed the slush pile, working on someone else's products, having to get approval, , and dealing with parts they just didn't care for but did it because they were the license holder.  

Now they have their own setting, their own system, their own adventure path stories they'd like to tell, etc.  I think they like their current set up much better.


----------



## Ruslanchik (May 29, 2008)

I used to visit the WoTC boards from time to time but stopped shortly after the Gleemax transformation started.  I didn't like the Gleemax changes but that is not why I stopped going there.  The real reason I hate those boards is because they are filled with jerks.  It is difficult to have a discussion when everyone is looking for something to criticize in every post.  I know that this is an issue on most boards (even one for a Buddhist magazine I used to visit that had to be shut down for time because of the rancor) but WoTC's boards are much worse than I have seen in other places.

ENWorld, refreshingly, has a fairly positive overall tone.  This is probably for two reasons: the people who come here are more mature and dedicated to this site than the people who visit Gleemax, and because the admins work hard to keep things this way.  I appreciate both greatly.


----------



## Ysgarran (May 29, 2008)

Kzach said:
			
		

> I can't believe I'm being more optimistic than Merric.
> 
> I'm still holding out hope that they pulled their heads in and focused on in-house alpha's and betas and will release a non-buggy, or at least functional, version come June.
> 
> But given we've already established in another thread that WotC's web department is run by committee, that hope is a dim one.




It isn't in the nature of a software development project for things to suddenly get better unless you have a major reset of some sort.  Past performance really does seem to a good predictor of future performance in the area of software design and implementation.   
IMHO, the process by which code happens within an organization becomes ingrained and integral part of that organization.   Simply put, change is hard once a group starts doing things in a particular fashion.


later,
Ysgarran.

p.s.
Excellent commentary DarkKestral.


----------



## Treebore (May 29, 2008)

dmccoy1693 said:
			
		

> Frankly, I don't think Paizo would accept.  I don't think they enjoyed the slush pile, working on someone else's products, having to get approval, , and dealing with parts they just didn't care for but did it because they were the license holder.
> 
> Now they have their own setting, their own system, their own adventure path stories they'd like to tell, etc.  I think they like their current set up much better.





I agree it is very possible Paizo would say no, but I also see a number of reasons why they would also agree to do it.

Anyways, WOTC/Hasbro is never going to admit they are failing/doing anything wrong, so I don't ever see them making such an offer to Paizo.

Still, it does look like they have made a very interesting new fantasy RPG, so who knows?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 29, 2008)

Ruslanchik said:
			
		

> The real reason I hate those boards is because they are filled with jerks.  It is difficult to have a discussion when everyone is looking for something to criticize in every post.  I know that this is an issue on most boards (even one for a Buddhist magazine I used to visit that had to be shut down for time because of the rancor)



So many jokes ...


----------



## havard (May 29, 2008)

For me the final straw was when they decided to merge all the sub forums of the Out of Print Settings. 

Yeah, that was a great idea... 

Havard


----------



## DarkKestral (May 29, 2008)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> So many jokes ...




I find the entire idea less amusing than.. totally bizarre and interesting, if only because I've never really heard of Buddhists going around and having such acrimonious arguments about the religion. I know there are some big ideological splits, but they don't seem to devolve to the level of internet flaming.

However, the fact that you think it's funny makes me wonder what you think is specifically so funny about it. (I can get that it's funny, if only because it's so outside my normal experience, but I wouldn't mind knowing what comes to mind most as being worthy of making a series of jokes about it. I mean, it does seem to get funnier to think about every time I read it.)


----------



## Clavis (May 29, 2008)

DarkKestral said:
			
		

> I find the entire idea less amusing than.. totally bizarre and interesting, if only because I've never really heard of Buddhists going around and having such acrimonious arguments about the religion. I know there are some big ideological splits, but they don't seem to devolve to the level of internet flaming.




You haven't hung out with enough Buddhists then. They're EXACTLY like everybody else. Give the Zen Buddhists a chance, and they'll rank on the Tibetans for being superstitious. Ask any Mahayana Buddhist what they think of Sri Lankan Hinayana Buddhism. In fact, the term "Hinayana" means "lesser vehicle" and is meant as a insult. Every scandal and bit of human rottenness you hear about in other religions is present in Buddhism also. All of which is only meant to show that people will always find _something_ to argue about, and _some_ excuse to degrade others. It's not the religion or philosophy that's to blame, just the nature of the human beast (or ignorant desire for sangsaric existence, if you're a Buddhist).


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (May 29, 2008)

Let's keep the religion out of this, guys.
-your friendly neighborhood Moderator.


----------



## EATherrian (May 29, 2008)

havard said:
			
		

> For me the final straw was when they decided to merge all the sub forums of the Out of Print Settings.
> 
> Yeah, that was a great idea...
> 
> Havard




Really?  I haven't been there for a while because I can't stand the graphics scheme of the site, but this is awful news.  When I want to read about a setting I don't want to have to go through every other setting out there even if I like them.  At least I still have canonfire, I think.


----------



## Mark Hope (May 29, 2008)

EATherrian said:
			
		

> Really?  I haven't been there for a while because I can't stand the graphics scheme of the site, but this is awful news.  When I want to read about a setting I don't want to have to go through every other setting out there even if I like them.  At least I still have canonfire, I think.



It's a bizarre decision.  In almost no time at all, the various communities have started splitting off and starting up/joining world-specific forums away from the WotC site.  Can't fault them.  The new "Other Worlds" forum at WotC is a mess.


----------



## Delta (May 29, 2008)

DarkKestral said:
			
		

> I find the entire idea less amusing than.. totally bizarre and interesting, if only because I've never really heard of Buddhists going around and having such acrimonious arguments about the religion.




I think the following is an anecdote about people and not religion:

I was a philosophy major in college (also math), and there was this one guy Brian in a lot of my philosophy classes who was pretty much a hothead. One day we're in a Theories of Myth round-table class, he gets into an argument with a student on the other side of the table. They go at it, finally Brian gets up and storms out of the class in disgust.

Once he's out of the room, the professor says -- "Hey, you should have seen him _before_ he became a Buddhist."


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 29, 2008)

Mark Hope said:
			
		

> It's a bizarre decision.  In almost no time at all, the various communities have started splitting off and starting up/joining world-specific forums away from the WotC site.  Can't fault them.  The new "Other Worlds" forum at WotC is a mess.



It was suggested on the MML, but everyone there for some reason likes the idea of starting up their own Internet community (I'm guessing because most of them have never gone through that particular headache before), but I'd like to see ENWorld open up forums for each of the "Other Worlds," with one forum per OOP TSR world.


----------



## Mark Hope (May 29, 2008)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> It was suggested on the MML, but everyone there for some reason likes the idea of starting up their own Internet community (I'm guessing because most of them have never gone through that particular headache before), but I'd like to see ENWorld open up forums for each of the "Other Worlds," with one forum per OOP TSR world.



That's a very cool idea.  It might help to prevent the communities from fragmenting more than they already have... if such a thing is even possible.


----------



## AllisterH (May 29, 2008)

I wonder if WOTC sees it the same way though.

For all the complaints, WOTC's web ranking is at 1700 and this is down from 3 months ago. WOTC.com gets hit often it seems.


----------



## dmccoy1693 (May 29, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> For all the complaints, WOTC's web ranking is at 1700 and this is down from 3 months ago. WOTC.com gets hit often it seems.




One of the truths of politics:  Controversey gets you noticed.  Half the time I wonder if their poor marketting campaign was to generate controversey and to get people to pay attenction to the new edition (if for no other reason then to see how Wizards is going to make a social blunder that day).  (i.e. would anyone would have watched Paris Hilton's show if the sex tape hadn't been "leaked" on the internet?)

Do I believe Wizards did a poor marketting campaign purposefully, no.  But I do wonder about it.  

To bring my comments back on topic:  But poor online community software isn't a "good controversey".  That is something that will cause long term problems.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (May 29, 2008)

dmccoy1693 said:
			
		

> (i.e. would anyone would have watched Paris Hilton's show if the sex tape hadn't been "leaked" on the internet?)




Now if only The Rouse had released a .......NO NO NO!


----------



## havard (May 29, 2008)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> It was suggested on the MML, but everyone there for some reason likes the idea of starting up their own Internet community (I'm guessing because most of them have never gone through that particular headache before), but I'd like to see ENWorld open up forums for each of the "Other Worlds," with one forum per OOP TSR world.




I wouldn't mind seeing that, but for now it looks like most people have either moved to world specific forum sites or to the Piazza (link in my sig). Mystara fans in particular have found their way to the latter.

Havard


----------



## Harr (May 30, 2008)

I agree in general, though I gotta give them ONE thing: Their 'Rules' subforum is a a lot, and I mean A LOT, more focused than the one here.

4e Rules here might as well be called 4e General. Maybe the fragmentation over at WotC has helped in this one little solitary thing. And the all jerks seem to be attracted to the player's, dm's, and general forums. *shrug*


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 30, 2008)

Harr said:
			
		

> I agree in general, though I gotta give them ONE thing: Their 'Rules' subforum is a a lot, and I mean A LOT, more focused than the one here.
> 
> 4e Rules here might as well be called 4e General. Maybe the fragmentation over at WotC has helped in this one little solitary thing. And the all jerks seem to be attracted to the player's, dm's, and general forums. *shrug*



The 4E Rules Forum has been the 4E Rules Forum for about all of 10 minutes now. It WAS the 4E General forum prior to that.

A better comparison would be to look at the 3E Rules forum, if those posts all ended up on a single board after the reorganization. It was scary focused with a hardcore crowd of OCD rules types. (And I mean that in the best way possible.)


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 30, 2008)

havard said:
			
		

> I wouldn't mind seeing that, but for now it looks like most people have either moved to world specific forum sites or to the Piazza (link in my sig). Mystara fans in particular have found their way to the latter.



Mystara fans who ever went back to WotC's boards, anyway.

I think anyone trying to make sure the OOP settings became so obscure that they were sure to die off would definitely do well to steer clear of the largest RPG fan site around.


----------



## GuardianLurker (May 30, 2008)

Actually, my understanding is that Radiant Machine isn't a new company. Rather, it's Fluid Entertainment with a renaming/rebranding. And since Fluid's the company that gave us E-Tools and the D&D 2e Core Rules toolset, well...

Gleemax actually functions better than I expected. And I share the general opinion of its current state.


----------



## Duvall (May 30, 2008)

Radiant Machine is a spin off of SolutionsIQ, an IT services firm.

Solutions IQ Spins Off Radiant Machine


----------



## BadMojo (May 30, 2008)

Duvall said:
			
		

> Radiant Machine is a spin off of SolutionsIQ, an IT services firm.
> 
> Solutions IQ Spins Off Radiant Machine




I hope they were working cheap.

That press release is actually pretty hilarious.  So much mutual smoke blown up fundaments it's the corporate world at it's best.  I get to read these at work a lot, and they're always a source of unintentional humor

_Company A: "Hey, you know what?  We're really great.  We're getting ready to do some really amazing stuff that's going to blow your mind.  We can't give you any details, but trust me it's great and we're great too."

Company B:  "Yeah.  You sure are a great bunch of guys.  Tall, handsome and what a magnificent head of hair you've got.  We're great too and I can't wait for us to collaborate and do some Really Awesome Stuff."_

So, we're approaching the release of a the biggest product Wizards has put out in close to a decade AND...the Gleemax website looks like someone started it and forgot to finish a quarter of the way in.  I remember looking at Gleemax many months ago and figuring that it would get better and I just gave them the benefit of the doubt.  For a few seconds, I actually thought the thing might turn out to be pretty cool (I thought that about the Character Gen program that came with the first 3.0 PHB too)

At least the impending failure of the chat software seems to be etched in stone.  Not all is confusion and disarray, they've got one thing that should happen on schedule.


----------



## Knightfall (May 30, 2008)

havard said:
			
		

> For me the final straw was when they decided to merge all the sub forums of the Out of Print Settings.
> 
> Yeah, that was a great idea...
> 
> Havard



Yes, that was one of the first things I noticed. And I hated it instantly. I have no use for Gleemax.


----------



## Knightfall (May 30, 2008)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> It was suggested on the MML, but everyone there for some reason likes the idea of starting up their own Internet community (I'm guessing because most of them have never gone through that particular headache before), but I'd like to see ENWorld open up forums for each of the "Other Worlds," with one forum per OOP TSR world.



That would be great; however, I don't think it will ever happen. WotC just doesn't care enough about the old settings. The only way we'll see a OOP TSR world get its own forum is if WotC decides to update one of them for 4e. And I don't have any interest in 4e, so that's no good.


----------



## blargney the second (May 30, 2008)

BadMojo said:
			
		

> _Company B:  "Yeah.  You sure are a great bunch of guys.  Tall, handsome and what a magnificent head of hair you've got.  We're great too and I can't wait for us to collaborate and do some Really Awesome Stuff."_



There can be only one response.
-blarg


----------



## humble minion (May 30, 2008)

Duvall said:
			
		

> Radiant Machine is a spin off of SolutionsIQ, an IT services firm.
> 
> Solutions IQ Spins Off Radiant Machine




Quote from that article:



> "Wizards of the Coast looks forward to *continuing our relationship with the Radiant Machine team*," said Randy Buehler, vice president of Digital Games for Wizards of the Coast. "It is very gratifying to work in such a collaborative fashion with a technology partner," said Buehler. The Radiant Machine team has shown an exceptional enthusiasm and grasp of our business objectives," said Buehler.




My bolding.  WotC has obviously worked with them before - probably under a different name since nobody had heard of Radiant Machine before Gleemax.  Wouldn't be at all surprised if they WERE Fluid with new hats on, actually.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (May 30, 2008)

humble minion said:
			
		

> The Radiant Machine team has shown an exceptional enthusiasm and grasp of our business objectives," said Buehler.




Well they may have a grasp of WotC's business objectives, too bad they don't know how to make a product that meets those objectives.


----------



## Delta (May 30, 2008)

humble minion said:
			
		

> My bolding.  WotC has obviously worked with them before - probably under a different name since nobody had heard of Radiant Machine before Gleemax.  Wouldn't be at all surprised if they WERE Fluid with new hats on, actually.




You're reading too much into that. The statement is true if they've been working with them for even 1 day beforehand.

You should get evidence that they were Fluid before making up silly rumors.


----------



## Davewolf (May 30, 2008)

Is Gleemax still the neon bright colouring they started with (that made my eyes water and gave me a headache)?
If the colour's muted I might go back and observe the oncoming trainwreck...


----------



## havard (May 30, 2008)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Mystara fans who ever went back to WotC's boards, anyway.




Not only. Several people who never posted at WotC have begun posting at the Piazza.  However, the WotC Mystara board was the most active discussion forum for Mystara fans over the last few years. 

The mailing list has also had a surge of activity this past week. 



> I think anyone trying to make sure the OOP settings became so obscure that they were sure to die off would definitely do well to steer clear of the largest RPG fan site around.




I wouldn't mind having a presence here, but my main concern is keeping the existing community alive. If ENWorld had a forum dedicated to each of the TSR settings things would have been different.

Havard


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 30, 2008)

havard said:
			
		

> I wouldn't mind having a presence here, but my main concern is keeping the existing community alive. If ENWorld had a forum dedicated to each of the TSR settings things would have been different.



Yeah, and as I said previously, the _last time_ WotC shut down a bunch of boards, those folks _asked ENWorld for boards_ and they were made immediately.

But I guess I shouldn't be surprised that this is going the same way the Mystara3E conversion project went. That ended up being a great tool for keeping the setting alive ...


----------



## Mistwell (May 30, 2008)

Gleemax hasn't launched yet, so it's too early to judge it.

The only response you ever really need is the image at the top of the page, the red part:


----------



## Dire Bare (May 31, 2008)

humble minion said:
			
		

> My bolding.  WotC has obviously worked with them before - probably under a different name since nobody had heard of Radiant Machine before Gleemax.  Wouldn't be at all surprised if they WERE Fluid with new hats on, actually.



Yeah, except that they're not.  But that paranoid conspiracy theory will live on in the intertubes, I'm sure.

You do realize that WotC has other brands than D&D?  And that some of those brands have web and/or computer products associated with them?  Perhaps the people behind Radiant Machine have worked with WotC on products other than D&D?  Crazy, I know.


----------



## havard (May 31, 2008)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Yeah, and as I said previously, the _last time_ WotC shut down a bunch of boards, those folks _asked ENWorld for boards_ and they were made immediately.




This could still become an option I suppose. I, personally, am not going to make this request at this time, however. If someone did, I would obviously participate there as well as at the PIAZZA.



> But I guess I shouldn't be surprised that this is going the same way the Mystara3E conversion project went. That ended up being a great tool for keeping the setting alive ...




Whoah, you are embodiment of cheeriness, aren't you? 
Not all projects go on forever. Was it a success? Maybe not. Did Mystara 3E conversions stop there? No, they just moved elsewhere. 

Thanks for your support.

Havard


----------



## Twowolves (May 31, 2008)

blargney the second said:
			
		

> There can be only one response.
> -blarg




That was AWESOME! 

"Babies everywhere! YEAH!!"


----------



## Delta (May 31, 2008)

"I just shattered my hand. YEAAHH!!"


----------



## Meghan (Jun 2, 2008)

I gave 7 years to the wizards boards and gleemax came in, pushed me down, kicked sand in my eyes and then brought in a pack if dingos to eat my baby.

When the free stuff pushes me away, I'm not really going to be interested in it when it goes pay.


----------



## DarkAngel1979 (Jun 18, 2008)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Gleemax hasn't launched yet, so it's too early to judge it.




I joined Gleemax right at last year's GenCon, and it was pretty much in the current state. (Well okay, they just finally released a couple of boardgames on the site. Gleemax-the-social-portal itself is pretty much the same as always.) This year's GenCon is a few weeks away. Make of that what you will...

And I was super excited by the Goblins Game, they started an open beta, and now... no news for months.

Within that timeframe, our company (not well known outside the IT industry, and I'm keeping it Anon) released one full version of our software, is poised on releasing another, AND we released a version of our Unix port and a handful of Service Packs to fix customers' issues. Now, obviously our stuff is a decade old and so a huge bunch of the work is already done, but would it have killed them to wait until they had a shot of releasing within a year's timeframe before turning on the hype machine? It's really bad marketing. A lot of people who might have been interested went, said meh, then promptly forgot about it, and now not only will the marketing dollars have to flow a second time to reach them, but they might actually go "Hey I remember this, it sucked. Why should I bother?", which means that they're actually going to have to work *harder* the second time to reach these people than if they just had never opened their claptrap about the project before it was ready.


----------



## Sentient Bean (Jun 19, 2008)

Clavis said:
			
		

> You haven't hung out with enough Buddhists then. They're EXACTLY like everybody else. Give the Zen Buddhists a chance, and they'll rank on the Tibetans for being superstitious. Ask any Mahayana Buddhist what they think of Sri Lankan Hinayana Buddhism. In fact, the term "Hinayana" means "lesser vehicle" and is meant as a insult. Every scandal and bit of human rottenness you hear about in other religions is present in Buddhism also. All of which is only meant to show that people will always find _something_ to argue about, and _some_ excuse to degrade others. It's not the religion or philosophy that's to blame, just the nature of the human beast (or ignorant desire for sangsaric existence, if you're a Buddhist).




Off topic, but what an interesting post.  I created an account just to mention that.


----------



## Lord Xtheth (Jun 19, 2008)

This board, this one right here, is the first thing I've heard about Gleemax since some time last year when they had the link up, I clicked it and it ruined my life.

I got better.

It didn't.


----------

