-- [GT24] Has any thought been given to using the Game Table app in LAN applications?
You can't really use a local LAN type setting for the D&D Game Table. If your LAN has Internet connection, though, you should be able to set something up in that aspect, but you'll need at least one subscription, and enough Guest passes to cover for your players using it.
For reference the answer and question came from this thread. Probably doesn't help one bit, as there are only a few posts and it won't clear much up, just posting incase someone wondered what the source was.
Ok so it's the second one (thankfully). In which case, we need to get an answer as to whether or not there has actually been consideration given to making the Game Table standalone, and if so why did they decide to do it they way they are?
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1067707
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1067066
(You actually replied to WotC_DM in this one, so I don't know why you are all of a sudden shocked that the GT will be online only)
Some threads you should probably read:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1067707
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1067066
(You actually replied to WotC_DM in this one, so I don't know why you are all of a sudden shocked that the GT will be online only)
I don't know how this keeps getting misunderstood. I'll try to clarify:
I am, and had been, aware that the table is offline only.
The question asked if any consideration had been given to the idea of an offline table, the answer did not address that.
In simpler terms:
"Hey have you ever thought about eating pepperoni pizza?"
"The pizza I eat is cheese."
That's not an answer to the question.
Sorry if I seem hostile, I'm just frustrated due to the misunderstandings and feelings of being hand waved on this issue by higher ups in WotC.
Will the game table be able to be used off-line
We are only making it online right now.
But I want to use it off line, as a projector of sorts.
You can use it as a projector, we have a second "player's view" window that you could project on a different screen, however you will still be required to be connected to WotC servers.
Why won't anyone tell me if I can use it offline??
They have't come out and said that there will be no offline GT, but a little bit of reading between the lines makes it clear that, for the time being, WotC is not planning on allowingt he GT to function if it is not connected to the WotC servers.
This is my impression of the back-and-forth that is going on:
Will the game table be able to be used off-line
We are only making it online right now.
But I want to use it off line, as a projector of sorts.
You can use it as a projector, we have a second "player's view" window that you could project on a different screen, however you will still be required to be connected to WotC servers.
Why won't anyone tell me if I can use it offline??
They have't come out and said that there will be no offline GT, but a little bit of reading between the lines makes it clear that, for the time being, WotC is not planning on allowingt he GT to function if it is not connected to the WotC servers.
And I understand that.
What I want to know is, have they even considered it, and if they have and decided against it, why?
I think the obvious answer would be that it needs to authenticate each player connected to the table, since each player must be a DDI subscriber. Allowing you to use it offline completely bypasses the need to be a subscriber. It's akin to asking why you can't play WoW offline via lan with your buddies.
You're missing the point. The point is, it is an application which could conceivably have been developed standalone. There are many other programs which have demonstrated a Game Table-like functionality which do not require subscribing to a service and logging onto a company's servers.
My question (and the question of many others who would prefer a standalone application) is why did they decide to do it this way instead?
As a one-time purchase, it has to compete against all the various other VTTs out there.
Then there is the added problem of updating it. The GT is supposed to interface with all of the other pieces of DDi. By making it a subscription service, WotC can guarantee that they only have one version out there to worry about. If you make it a standalone purchase, then you have to worry about making upgrade packages for every preior version to the latest version. Then you also have to code the interface between all of the various versions.
The profit model probably looked better than it did if it was a one-time purchase.
As a one-time purchase, it has to compete against all the various other VTTs out there.
Then there is the added problem of updating it. The GT is supposed to interface with all of the other pieces of DDi. By making it a subscription service, WotC can guarantee that they only have one version out there to worry about. If you make it a standalone purchase, then you have to worry about making upgrade packages for every preior version to the latest version. Then you also have to code the interface between all of the various versions.
Or you could limit backwards compatibility?
Well, I don't know how the various customers of D&DI are spread out, but I do know there are a lot of us that don't want a subscription service. If we are the majority (which I don't know) they're model doesn't mean a whole lot without customers. *shrug*
As far as competing:
I think it's competing with them anyway. Just because their pricing model is different, doesn't mean it takes the Game Table out of a competitive sphere. It's still a VTT, and it's competing with the other VTTs. Pricing model and connectivity requirements are just a factor in how they measure up.
Or you could limit backwards compatibility?
Possibly, but I think that would just introduce more complexity and confusion into the DDI Customer Service side of things.
Possibly, but I think that would just introduce more complexity and confusion into the DDI Customer Service side of things.
Possibly, but I don't think it would do that much. It's not all that hard to say "you need the latest patch."
Possibly, but I don't think it would do that much. It's not all that hard to say "you need the latest patch."
You'd think so, but I can think of at least one thread on here where someone is complaining that WotC doesn't know what they're doing because he had to upgrade his Acrobat Reader to the latest version as part of the solution to a problem he was having viewing magazine articles.
Well, I don't know how the various customers of D&DI are spread out, but I do know there are a lot of us that don't want a subscription service. If we are the majority (which I don't know) they're model doesn't mean a whole lot without customers. *shrug*
No offense, but tough. They want to shift to a subscription based service to support online play, online rules databases, online character creators, and online magazines. While I too would rather spend money once on a VTT, the MMO pricing model has proven to be a success even for smaller MMOs out there. Quite frankly - if you want a horse and Wizards of the Coast is developing a pony, rather than gripe and moan about it and try to force them into making a horse (which isn't going to happen) just go out and by a horse.
Believe it or not, you'll do a lot more to sway a corporation by voting with your wallet than by griping on the internet.
You'd think so, but I can think of at least one thread on here where someone is complaining that WotC doesn't know what they're doing because he had to upgrade his Acrobat Reader to the latest version as part of the solution to a problem he was having viewing magazine articles.
Yeah I saw that thread.
Regardless, if you're going to get into entertainment software, get used to patches. If you don't like, reconsider your decision to get into computer gaming in any form.
No offense, but tough. They want to shift to a subscription based service to support online play, online rules databases, online character creators, and online magazines. While I too would rather spend money once on a VTT, the MMO pricing model has proven to be a success even for smaller MMOs out there. Quite frankly - if you want a horse and Wizards of the Coast is developing a pony, rather than gripe and moan about it and try to force them into making a horse (which isn't going to happen) just go out and by a horse.
Believe it or not, you'll do a lot more to sway a corporation by voting with your wallet than by griping on the internet.
Yeah, it has been a success, but then again those are games people play at least several times a week, if not daily.
This is another story.
I'm aware that simply not buying it will probably send more of a message. That's what I'm going to do, cause I'm sure as heck not paying a MMO-level monthly subscription to a piece of software that I'll use only a few times a month.
Still, I can hold the hope that something might change between now and release. At least, by expressing my opinion (and the opinion of others), maybe if D&DI flops then they might try my idea next time.
Still, I can hold the hope that something might change between now and release. At least, by expressing my opinion (and the opinion of others), maybe if D&DI flops then they might try my idea next time.
Not trying to prevent you from holding the opinion, but I really feel like complaints here are like whistling into a hurricane.
Not trying to prevent you from holding the opinion, but I really feel like complaints here are like whistling into a hurricane.
Well, its really more like more like whistling in a vacuum... in the end your head is going to explode.
Not trying to prevent you from holding the opinion, but I really feel like complaints here are like whistling into a hurricane.
True enough, but I can always hope it will generate enough interest that someone who made the design decisions will feel compelled, for some reason, to at least explain the reasoning (if there is any).
And I understand that.
What I want to know is, have they even considered it, and if they have and decided against it, why?
$$$$
You could get a one time fee for the tools and risk people not updating with patches or having patches that don't work, or you can do it online with subscriptions that people are forced to buy the patches or get them because they are paying anyway.
This also protects the IP as it is never given to the consumer, but resides on the WotC servers.
It is easier, and generates more money for WotC.
Many people would prefer a standalone offline version, but WotC knows that this would generate only a single investment where there is no need for people to make additional purchases to use the software.
Maybe also if you could use it without WotC servers some other company would see it as some license violation for the digital rights to making a "video game" rather than a collection of tools.
There are many excuses why they choose the online only model, but I don't buy hardly any of them no matter how believable/reasonable they are.
That is why people will have the choice of Fantasy Grounds, OpenRPG, or ScreenMonkey (IIRC) still to use when DDI comes out. Those will not have Dragon, Dungeon, or integrated D&D material, but they do exist.
$$$$
You could get a one time fee for the tools and risk people not updating with patches or having patches that don't work, or you can do it online with subscriptions that people are forced to buy the patches or get them because they are paying anyway.
This also protects the IP as it is never given to the consumer, but resides on the WotC servers.
It is easier, and generates more money for WotC.
Many people would prefer a standalone offline version, but WotC knows that this would generate only a single investment where there is no need for people to make additional purchases to use the software.
Maybe also if you could use it without WotC servers some other company would see it as some license violation for the digital rights to making a "video game" rather than a collection of tools.
There are many excuses why they choose the online only model, but I don't buy hardly any of them no matter how believable/reasonable they are.
That is why people will have the choice of Fantasy Grounds, OpenRPG, or ScreenMonkey (IIRC) still to use when DDI comes out. Those will not have Dragon, Dungeon, or integrated D&D material, but they do exist.
Fair enough, if they actually think they'll get more money this way.
Yeah I saw that thread.
Regardless, if you're going to get into entertainment software, get used to patches. If you don't like, reconsider your decision to get into computer gaming in any form.
Wizards should know all about patches. That is what E-Tools is... one big patch.
Wizards should know all about patches. That is what E-Tools is... one big patch.
Too bad there was no real program that it tried to patch though.
To bad they are were left out of the ability to have the Data Set for the Real Program... RPG Forge.
Hopefully they will have a structure in place to put in 4th edition information by hand.