The Failure of Gleemax

[Ghendar]

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

 

[WhatGravitas]

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]

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

I was before it was launched

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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]

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]

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

 

[Khairn]

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]

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

ROTFLMAO!

 

[Vrecknidj]

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]

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

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

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]

((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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.