Gleemax is Dead

[Samuel Leming]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

Nitpick from a resident German EN Worlder: Schadenfreude.

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

 

[Plane Sailing]

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.


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

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]

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.

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

No, certainly not...

 

[rounser]

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]

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.

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.

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?

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.

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]

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]

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

 

[JohnRTroy]

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.