Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Michielfl Nov 29, 2010 16:42:54	Last few months I've been following the whole CB and wCB discussion with interest. At the same time unbeknowing that wizards was still building a VTT, I bought a license for Fantasy Grounds II. I must say that I like it a lot, mostly because of it's flexibility. That flexibility is partly achieved through community created content. In the aforementioned discussion on the wCB, I noticed that some community members claim to have experience with Visual Studio 2010 and Expression Studio 4. Secondly part of the inner workings of the CB and wCB have already been explored by the community. I wonder if wizards would allow us a community write snippets of code for the wCB, that would allow some of the functionality that is requested. They could then review that functionality and approve or dissaprove it. If it is approved they can add it. A lot more work can be done in a shorter time. The raging nerds can have some input and you can build a great program for everybody, on par with a lot of the competition. Because, and I say this with all do respect to the work already done, at this rate WoTC will not catch up very soon. The old CB was great, the wCB is nice but clearly still in a Alfa/Beta stage. This off course would only work if the raging community here, which claims to have so many solutions, actually do help. And WoTC would have to be willing to play along. I think WoTC can, because they keep control of the intellectual property and they have control of improvements that are made to their software. Maybe I'm dreaming of an Utopia here. But you can't blame a man for trying.
#2 thespaceinvader Nov 30, 2010 3:11:54	Maybe I'm dreaming of an Utopia here. But you can't blame a man for trying. Whilst I ENTIRELY agree with the sentiment... You are.
#3 kenjoon Nov 30, 2010 12:12:05	I don't know of any "for profit" company that releases it's proprietary source code.  That's like slitting your own throat.  This is typically handled by releasing a script API that allows you to extend or add on to what they have already done.  Look at Neverwinter Nights or WoW for examples of what I'm talking about. That said, I don't see a web service as being able to do this.
#4 RedSiegfried Nov 30, 2010 14:21:41	Allowing people to assist voluntarily with building software for a for-profit company leads to many issues.  Next thing you know people are demanding payment and taking you to court over property issues and WoTC is getting sued because one of the helpers used something that didn't belong to him.  It's why Atari was very careful about not allowing community content into official Neverwinter Nights expansions and only did it after extensive review and hiring/contracting the creator.  And even then, supposedly, a few things that didn't belong to them snuck their way in.  They allowed the community to make and distribute free content, but would never in any way endorse it or support it, and of course anyone caught charging for it in any way got the hammer put down on them. It's a trap - a business with a mind toward not getting sued won't take the chance.
#5 calant Nov 30, 2010 14:21:52	I don't know of any "for profit" company that releases it's proprietary source code.  That's like slitting your own throat.  This is typically handled by releasing a script API that allows you to extend or add on to what they have already done.  Look at Neverwinter Nights or WoW for examples of what I'm talking about. That said, I don't see a web service as being able to do this. Tons do. Companies that provide open source software usually make money by providing tech support. Really, Wizards is in a good position to make this open source - they would continue to charge for providing the official, regular updates to the huge amount of data, while the app would be free.
#6 RedSiegfried Nov 30, 2010 14:50:56	More work for WoTC and less profit.  Yeah, all businesses should be run like that, just because I'd get free stuff then.  /sarc But if this all is anything other than subtle trolling, please write out a proposal with a cost/benefit analysis and present it to the management in charge of DDI.  However, let me explain something.  Plowing money into developing a product and then giving it away for free is a good idea if you're a masochist who likes to lose money for your employer and then get laid off, but the reality based community tends to roll their eyes at a capitalist endeavor that produces profit like a socialist one.  It doesn't pay the rent and it irritates your stockholders.  You know, the ones who provide part of your capital.  It also tends to irritate your customers when you go out of business and stop providing a product they want. Tons do.  Companies that provide open source software usually make money by providing tech support Which is good because most of the software is non-standardized junk that wouldn't sell well enough to keep them in business otherwise.  The reason it's junk?  Because they let everyone wreck it.  Isn't it nice to know that someone else is making money off your free work?  they would continue to charge for providing the official, regular updates to the huge amount of data, while the app would be free. That's kinda what they're doing now.  It doesn't need to be open source for that.  Open source for CB would be the fastest way to insure that within 15 minutes the 15 versions of the app would all be incompatible with the official data and that the board of directors would have to call for a meeting on why WoTC let middle-schoolers into their upper management. Really, snark aside, it's just never going to happen.  You want input into the wCB?  Submit detailed bug reports.  You want input into the VT?  Set yourself up to get a beta invite.  You can help that way.  WoTC is not going to turn over their property to you. To the OP, no I would never blame someone for dreaming.  But it wouldn't be a Utopia.  More like disfunctional anarchy.
#7 Michielfl Nov 30, 2010 15:44:34	Offcourse an open source project is commercial suicide for something like the character builder. That is not the way community created content is shared within Fantasy Grounds either. In the Fantasy Grounds forums, people share created additions and tools for the machine that are shared publicly and encouraged by the devs. They do not give the complete layout for the program itself. But since it is based on a rather easy computing language it is easy to add on it. The CB and wCB are essentially XML database clients. An DND4E characterfile can be easily used by other XML parsers. I could imagine the community making a new character sheet editor and sharing it with the public. Since it only works on characters created in a the closed environment of the wCB, it only adds to its functionality. I can see WotC encouraging this. If the code from this publicly created tool is compatible with their wCB I can see them adding to their builder as well. New ideas can develop a lot faster this way. Windows has evolved a lot with the help from a lot of home made code. Don't know the ins and outs on the legal issues, but I don't think this would be problem. A lot of the supported phone apps and for instance Hero Labs works on a similar basis. This is most definitly not open source. WotC lets other people create and publish adventures for the 4e system with the GSL as well. All I know is that Silverlight allows for loads more functionality then the builder has at the moment. It is easy to add the functionality. And if they don't add it themselves, it would be nice if they allowed and encouraged community created software that follows their EULA, that does have this functionality. This is not subtle trolling, but a seriously proposed solution. People within the community are already starting to do this. For example the phone apps, the compendium viewers, the house made character sheets that autocalculate, etc. WotC should try and get some control on this community based content. And the community should try to work together to make this stuff of decent quality and within the company's EULA. Both parties win, not quite a revolution and a solution found with a lot of companies.
#8 kenjoon Nov 30, 2010 17:26:11	I don't know of any "for profit" company that releases it's proprietary source code.  That's like slitting your own throat.  This is typically handled by releasing a script API that allows you to extend or add on to what they have already done.  Look at Neverwinter Nights or WoW for examples of what I'm talking about. That said, I don't see a web service as being able to do this. Tons do. Companies that provide open source software usually make money by providing tech support. Really, Wizards is in a good position to make this open source - they would continue to charge for providing the official, regular updates to the huge amount of data, while the app would be free. Did you even read what I said?  Proprietary != Open Source.  They are exact opposites.  There is no such thing as "proprietary open source".  Open source is what WotC did with 3e.  Remember all the rage about the change from OGL to GSL????  Open source doesn't work for WotC because it doesn't allow them to protect their IP.
#9 thespaceinvader Dec 01, 2010 2:41:13	Actually, it could.  The engine would be open source, the content would be proprietary.  Probably the engine would interrogate WOTC's proprietary database of content via an API as many people have asked for. Open source engine/closed or proprietary content can be done, and done successfully.  This is the model a new iPhone game called Frogatto uses right now.  Not to mention the Quake engine or the Doom engine... You'd have to implement it a little differently for a character creator as opposed to a game engine, but I don't doubt that with a willing company, it could be done. Of course, it's something of a moot point, since WOTC are so unlikely to be willing to do it.  But there you go.
#10 Jharii Dec 01, 2010 4:54:20	You absolutely do not need to reveal your source code in order to provide the ability for add-ons.  But you have to have that in mind when you are building your application to incorporate this functionality, and I highly doubt that Wizards had this foresight or intent.
#11 kenjoon Dec 01, 2010 11:54:56	Actually, it could.  The engine would be open source, the content would be proprietary.  Probably the engine would interrogate WOTC's proprietary database of content via an API as many people have asked for. Open source engine/closed or proprietary content can be done, and done successfully.  This is the model a new iPhone game called Frogatto uses right now.  Not to mention the Quake engine or the Doom engine... You'd have to implement it a little differently for a character creator as opposed to a game engine, but I don't doubt that with a willing company, it could be done. Of course, it's something of a moot point, since WOTC are so unlikely to be willing to do it.  But there you go. Not that they don't already have huge security flaws in their existing product that completely fails to protect their IP, but you're suggesting that they give out another way (API) to scrape their DB.
#12 kenjoon Dec 01, 2010 12:00:21	You absolutely do not need to reveal your source code in order to provide the ability for add-ons.  But you have to have that in mind when you are building your application to incorporate this functionality, and I highly doubt that Wizards had this foresight or intent. I did mention Neverwinter and WoW as examples of software with extensible scripting APIs.  I'm still not clear how you'd load an "addon" in a browser (automatically).  I can see a menu item doing it, but that gets tedious having to load all your add-ons manually each time you launch the program.  Maybe store add-ons in a cookie or something like it.....not a web dev so a little green on how those things are done.
#13 TheHux Dec 01, 2010 21:57:58	I don't understand why people are talking about "helping" WoTC make money. If you are capable of making a CB then just do it.
#14 Jharii Dec 01, 2010 22:20:42	I don't understand why people are talking about "helping" WoTC make money. If you are capable of making a CB then just do it. It's not worth it if only myself and my group are the only ones that could use it.  If we could distribute a fully functional CB to the general public, filled with the data, then you can bet it would be done.
#15 Michielfl Dec 02, 2010 1:08:39	Just got some books on working with Expression Studio 4.0. Since I've got two weeks of vacation coming up. I will look into making a character sheet editor, that let's you personalize, tweek and houserule your sheets. Might work better in Dreamweaver, but I'll see how far I can get by the end of januari. I'll keep everybody updated. If anybody has any ideas, I'll be glad to hear them.
#16 calant Dec 02, 2010 3:19:25	Which is good because most of the software is non-standardized junk that wouldn't sell well enough to keep them in business otherwise.  The reason it's junk?  Because they let everyone wreck it.  Isn't it nice to know that someone else is making money off your free work? Hmm. I don't think you have a very good understanding of the open source community. You certainly seem to have a very negative perception/opinion of it. I think if you did an analysis of closed-source, commercial vs open-source software, you'd find the fomer has a higher propensity for being 'junk.'  they would continue to charge for providing the official, regular updates to the huge amount of data, while the app would be free. That's kinda what they're doing now.  It doesn't need to be open source for that.  Open source for CB would be the fastest way to insure that within 15 minutes the 15 versions of the app would all be incompatible with the official data and that the board of directors would have to call for a meeting on why WoTC let middle-schoolers into their upper management. I don't think I said it *needed* to be open source. Nor did I intend to imply it. I just pointed out that it could be a valid business model. Just like you don't need to pay a dime to use iTunes, Apple provides it for free because they know it's a way to get you to pay for content and hardware. That said, I hadn't considered the bleeding obvious - while making the CB open-source shouldn't be a problem, the data updates themselves would be. Providing feeds to updated data via authenticated, subscription enabled webservices wouldn't work unless 4e itself was open source. But Wizards decided against making 4e open source, and that's the stickler. To the OP, no I would never blame someone for dreaming.  But it wouldn't be a Utopia.  More like disfunctional anarchy. Like I said, you have some pretty negative opinions about open source. Thankfully, there are plenty of people that feel differently.
#17 thespaceinvader Dec 02, 2010 3:20:04	Actually, it could.  The engine would be open source, the content would be proprietary.  Probably the engine would interrogate WOTC's proprietary database of content via an API as many people have asked for. Open source engine/closed or proprietary content can be done, and done successfully.  This is the model a new iPhone game called Frogatto uses right now.  Not to mention the Quake engine or the Doom engine... You'd have to implement it a little differently for a character creator as opposed to a game engine, but I don't doubt that with a willing company, it could be done. Of course, it's something of a moot point, since WOTC are so unlikely to be willing to do it.  But there you go. Not that they don't already have huge security flaws in their existing product that completely fails to protect their IP, but you're suggesting that they give out another way (API) to scrape their DB. Two points on that: the first being general cliche about locked doors and bolted horses.  The second being that in the discussion thread about the suggestion of an API, a variety of security measures were suggested, relating to the fact that anything of this sort would still be behind a paywall. I doubt it'll happen.  But it's not unfeasible.
#18 calant Dec 02, 2010 3:26:29	Did you even read what I said?  Proprietary != Open Source.  They are exact opposites.  There is no such thing as "proprietary open source".  Open source is what WotC did with 3e.  Remember all the rage about the change from OGL to GSL????  Open source doesn't work for WotC because it doesn't allow them to protect their IP. Proprietary doesn't have to *stay* proprietary, does it? Not only are there are different degrees of 'open' in open source software based on different licencing models, a developer doesn't even have to make all the code for a particular product open source. Google's a perfect example. That said, it kinda does rely on 4e itself being open source. No, I dropped DnD long before GSL, so have no idea of the nerd rage that occurred then. But it's pretty clear making 4e open isn't going to happen any time soon. Instead, they're trying to 'protect' it even more at the risk of loosing customers (you see my sub is canceled? got 50% back yesterday) by forcing us to use a less functional and more buggy online-only CB.
#19 kenjoon Dec 02, 2010 17:08:00	Did you even read what I said?  Proprietary != Open Source.  They are exact opposites.  There is no such thing as "proprietary open source".  Open source is what WotC did with 3e.  Remember all the rage about the change from OGL to GSL????  Open source doesn't work for WotC because it doesn't allow them to protect their IP. Proprietary doesn't have to *stay* proprietary, does it? Not only are there are different degrees of 'open' in open source software based on different licencing models, a developer doesn't even have to make all the code for a particular product open source. Google's a perfect example. That said, it kinda does rely on 4e itself being open source. No, I dropped DnD long before GSL, so have no idea of the nerd rage that occurred then. But it's pretty clear making 4e open isn't going to happen any time soon. Instead, they're trying to 'protect' it even more at the risk of loosing customers (you see my sub is canceled? got 50% back yesterday) by forcing us to use a less functional and more buggy online-only CB. OGL vs. GSL:  If you are playing 4e then you didn't drop DnD before GSL.  GSL is simply their licensing model for 3rd party developers.  For 3.x they had the OGL which in many respects is very similar to "Open Source" software licenses.  GSL is substantially more restrictive in what is allowed because apparently they lost their shirts with OGL. Proprietary vs. Open Source:  I agree with your assessment that in order for open source CB to work for them, the system itself would have to be open source.  Since we have GSL now instead of OGL that won't happen at all under 4e (see above). Refunds and the Free Market (generally referred to as Capitalism):  I am completely in favor of the free market.  If you are dissatisfied with their product then by all means don't give them your money.  I have been saying this for months that the best way to get your point across is to stop funding what you don't like.  That said...it seems like every thread on these boards is just smeared with hate and anger.  WotC lied,  WotC used "bait and switch", WotC blah blah blah.  It just makes me wish that these were insider only boards.  Reading through 100 posts to find the 5 posts I actually had any interest in reading is getting old.
#20 calant Dec 03, 2010 1:36:52	GSL is substantially more restrictive in what is allowed because apparently they lost their shirts with OGL. I'm curious as to how they lost money. Didn't OGL allow publication of supplements only, not republishing of rules? And didn't OGL require a licencing fee to sell products under OGL?   I am completely in favor of the free market. I'm afraid I'm not an economist to make an educated judgment. I know on paper it looks fine and dandy, I also know there are valid reasons for the government to regulate (yay Wall Street). I don't suppose you think hard porn and cigarettes should be available to five year olds? So I guess you agree that there needs to be a balance between 'free' and 'restricted'. In any event, I think voicing frustration is expected and understandable - it is a *fiasco*, no matter how some fanboys try to spin it. I just wish I read more 'I canceled my sub' than 'I canceled auto-renew'. Sheesh. I canceled auto-renew every time I sub'd because I don't like the thought of a sub renewing without my intervention. (I still think auto-renew should be opt-in, though that's another story.) Wizards doesn't care how many people cancel auto-renew - their assumption will be that those customers will simply resub soon after expiration like I did. If you want to show Wizards your displeasure, CANCEL AND DEMAND REFUND. I'm not sure if they automatically refund; I didn't wait to see, I contacted them to let them know why I was canceling (inferior replacement that has a horrible character sheet with no customability) and that I expected a refund. I got a per diem of my remaining time back. So like you said - dissatisfied customers should be hitting them in the wallet. Immediate cancellation of subscription and not just auto-renew is the way to do that.
#21 kenjoon Dec 03, 2010 8:27:34	GSL is substantially more restrictive in what is allowed because apparently they lost their shirts with OGL. I'm curious as to how they lost money. Didn't OGL allow publication of supplements only, not republishing of rules? And didn't OGL require a licencing fee to sell products under OGL? I meant this in the abstract.  I'm not saying they lost money, more that the lost a lot of potential sales.  The OGL is what allowed things like Mutants & Masterminds and other spin-offs based on the core system.  Those were basically the core rules republished.  I seem to recall someone who just literally published the rules verbatim on a web site because it was allowed by OGL.  With GSL no such thing will happen.   I am completely in favor of the free market. I'm afraid I'm not an economist to make an educated judgment. I know on paper it looks fine and dandy, I also know there are valid reasons for the government to regulate (yay Wall Street). I don't suppose you think hard porn and cigarettes should be available to five year olds? So I guess you agree that there needs to be a balance between 'free' and 'restricted'. In any event, I think voicing frustration is expected and understandable - it is a *fiasco*, no matter how some fanboys try to spin it. I just wish I read more 'I canceled my sub' than 'I canceled auto-renew'. Sheesh. I canceled auto-renew every time I sub'd because I don't like the thought of a sub renewing without my intervention. (I still think auto-renew should be opt-in, though that's another story.) Wizards doesn't care how many people cancel auto-renew - their assumption will be that those customers will simply resub soon after expiration like I did. If you want to show Wizards your displeasure, CANCEL AND DEMAND REFUND. I'm not sure if they automatically refund; I didn't wait to see, I contacted them to let them know why I was canceling (inferior replacement that has a horrible character sheet with no customability) and that I expected a refund. I got a per diem of my remaining time back. So like you said - dissatisfied customers should be hitting them in the wallet. Immediate cancellation of subscription and not just auto-renew is the way to do that. The free market works in about 90-99% of all cases where interested parties wish to exchange goods and both buyer and seller are looking out for their own interest.  Some of the cases where the free market does not work include the following: 1) Monopolies - Think about your local utility or the postal service or the water company.  Microsoft is close to being one, but not quite.  There are enough other options with reasonable price (Linux = free) that they can't take advantage of their monopoly buy gouging the customer.  In any event all these are what you would describe as regulated.  I forgot to add GOVERNMENT.  Government is a monopoly that is regulated by a system called voting.  If you don't like what they are doing you vote them out.  In Dictatorships you "vote" them out by killing them.  It's a little more messy and there is a lot more upheaval during transition periods. 2) The problem of the Commons - ingrimayne.com/econ/ActionsResults/Commo... (just the first link that came up when I searched) - This is an issue when you have a finite shared resource.  Individuals have no incentive (financial) to not use as much of the shared resource as possible.  On the other hand if you split the shared resource evenly among everyone then each person is affected equally vs. having just one big pool to share.  This applies to things like natural resources (such as Oil, Timber, Coal, etc.) and possibly other things as well. 3) I'm sure there are others that I'm forgetting. Edit: If my 5 year old is accessing hard porn or has cigarettes then I'm pretty sure it's my fault, but your point is taken and works better with older kids....say 12+.  Until you give them some amount of autonomy they won't have access to those things without your knowledge or consent.  At the very least they won't go looking for those things until they know what it is and have a desire for them.