Mars wrote:Mabye Gary should start a portal too:  Gygamax.

Would he need to name it Xagygmax?  

Xaxaxe wrote:[ Image ]

May I borrow this image for sig/avatar use on another site?  I like it.

Xaxaxe wrote:Go for it — use it as you see fit. As long as you're actually mocking WotC and/or Gleemax, of course ...  

Thanks.  Mocking Gleemax mostly.  I'm saddened and angered by the demise of Dragon and Dungeon magazines.  I'm blaming the DI and Gleemax.

Skips along merrily. Notices new web site.

"Oh... I daresay....Gleemax!  How truly wonderful!

I'm splendidly sure it will maiximise my glee!"

"Oh can I play there Mother? Can I? Can I?"

Isn't stuff like this the problem with modern capitalism? Why can't a company like WOTC/Hasbro who has been literally rolling in profits since I was a youngster just put out a good product that appeals to gamers rather than trying to psychoanalyze the market to maximize their current profits?

I'd guess these guys have their respective fortunes set with MTG anyway... couldn't they produce less quantity and more quality? What if they created a new division just for oop editions? Tell me all of us wouldn't be at least mildly interested...Instead we continue to languish with the cheapest products at the highest prices across the board not just in the gaming world.

Gleemax? Someone at that brainstorming session must have said "Dude, WTF?"

Ech

Gellmax

This is a realisation, perhaps late, of what the younger generation is doing.  For example, both my daughters do everything online (19 and 22). Same with all their university friends.

And face it, who spends the money?

I suspect that Gleemax is vague and worthless at the moment because WOTC is saving up all of their information for GenCon.

They have an outline of a plan and little else at this point, I suspect, or they don't want to reveal their product just yet.

Nice research Jason and good thinking to check out their site to see what they are hiring for. I have read through all of the thread and as OD&D gamer from the late 70's, I have to say that this really    I had a subscription to Dragon from issue #66 thru #296, a Polyhedron subscription that went from #11 thru #160+ (too tired to check), and a Dungeon subscription from #1 thru #96. I opted to unsubscribe when WoTC took over the mags as the whole design, feel, and more importantly substance began to change. The product was being aimed at too many audiences and not just the CORE audience that had created the industry to begin with. It was our "GDMN, MTHRFKNG" money (I had to earn the money for my D&D stuff as my dad was not too keen on it) that supported them.

Anyhow, now that I got that out of my system (Oops, still had a little left), I will put my objective marketing hat on. I could not look past the first page of "Smegmax", as all I had to read was this passage:

Gleemax wrote:Gleemax will be The Home for Gamers on the web -- a combination of social networking, on-line gaming and game related content. This site will be for everyone. Whether you play RPGs, TCGs, board games, turn-based strategy games, miniature war games, or almost any type of tabletop/hobby game, you will find a home here.

The line that is bolded & underlined says to me that they are attempting to be the quintessential online gaming destination, but with a "Disney-esque" name. Obviously the powers to be decided on a nice, clean, and wholesome name . . . which I'm sure will lure people away from sites like World of Warcraft (not saying their portal will be the same). WoTC/Hasbro is going about this the wrong way, they want to market to all types of gamers and then hope to cross-sell (not like cross dressing) them on their other prodcuts. This is a valid marketing strategy, but you have to create what the consumers want. In other words, I do NOT want to go to a site that is trying to be everthing to everyone, but if you had a site that was aimed just at my gaming interests and had creative or incentivized (making up words) links for other product lines, then I might be inclined to check them out. This whole thing is doomed to fail or at least FLAIL around for a while (management is rarely ever wrong, just poor timing or blame it on the execution) until it dissolves or evolves into something more similar to what I mentioned. (My diatribe)

Thanks,