www.wizards.com/dnd/article.aspx?x=dnd/d...
Matthew;13064571 wrote:
1. It’s ultimately portable. I can use it on any computer or computer-like device, wherever I am.
Unless there's no internet where you are.
Here's the thing, Bill. If you have your computer with you, the one thing you can be certain of is; you have your computer with you. If the CB is *on* that computer, then you have the CB with you. That's portable. If it's on my laptop, then anywhere I have my laptop, I have the Character Builder.
In other words, you've made the app less portable because now instead of *merely* needing my computer, I now *also* need the internet.
This is the kind of argument that makes the "naysayers" sound unfaithful. It's impossible to take seriously. It's completely bloody ridicolous. If you think that the event of someone having his laptop with him is more likely than someone having access to an internet connection, I don't know what.
A tiny fraction of the adult population brings his laptop with him every day. The vast majority of students, office workers, store clerks, bank accounters, lawyers, doctors, secretaries and basically anyone that isn't doing hard labour has access to a computer several times a day, and that computer is connected to the net, and when the webtools go online, it will be a character creating machine.
Stop the nonsense. Bill is bloody right, and you're not making any sense. I preferred the old CB too, but you won't persuade WotC of its merits with this kind of absurd argument.
It sounds like you're saying that's not true, but you can't be saying that, so I don't know what you're saying.
All existing users just lost some functionality. That loss will only impact a certain percentage of those users.
What, then, is the benefit gained? We can no longer user the Builder where we don't have internet.
What is the unambiguous benefit, for us the existing users to the Character Builder being exclusively online?
1. It’s ultimately portable. I can use it on any computer or computer-like device, wherever I am.
Unless there's no internet where you are.
Here's the thing, Bill. If you have your computer with you, the one thing you can be certain of is; you have your computer with you. If the CB is *on* that computer, then you have the CB with you. That's portable. If it's on my laptop, then anywhere I have my laptop, I have the Character Builder.
In other words, you've made the app less portable because now instead of *merely* needing my computer, I now *also* need the internet.
This is the kind of argument that makes the "naysayers" sound unfaithful. It's impossible to take seriously. It's completely bloody ridicolous. If you think that the event of someone having his laptop with him is more likely than someone having access to an internet connection, I don't know what.
A tiny fraction of the adult population brings his laptop with him every day. The vast majority of students, office workers, store clerks, bank accounters, lawyers, doctors, secretaries and basically anyone that isn't doing hard labour has access to a computer several times a day, and that computer is connected to the net, and when the webtools go online, it will be a character creating machine.
Stop the nonsense. Bill is bloody right, and you're not making any sense. I preferred the old CB too, but you won't persuade WotC of its merits with this kind of absurd argument.
For a group of people who has internet connecticity severely restricted, might I direct your attention to this thread:
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
I think if someone has his laptop with him, the only thing you can be certain of is; he has his laptop with him. You can't be certain he has internet access.
It sounds like you're saying that's not true, but you can't be saying that, so I don't know what you're saying.
All existing users just lost some functionality. That loss will only impact a certain percentage of those users.
What, then, is the benefit gained? We can no longer user the Builder where we don't have internet.
What is the unambiguous benefit, for us the existing users to the Character Builder being exclusively online?
No, what I'm saying is that I got a laptop, I take it with me fairly frequently and still I know that after the CB goes Web 2.0 I will have access to character creation infinitely more often then I did before.
And anyone can see that.
Do you believe that someone who wants to use the CB, but is for the moment somewhere without internet access will be able to use it?
Or do you believe there are no such people?
This is the kind of argument that makes the "naysayers" sound unfaithful. It's impossible to take seriously. It's completely bloody ridicolous. If you think that the event of someone having his laptop with him is more likely than someone having access to an internet connection, I don't know what.
A tiny fraction of the adult population brings his laptop with him every day. The vast majority of students, office workers, store clerks, bank accounters, lawyers, doctors, secretaries and basically anyone that isn't doing hard labour has access to a computer several times a day, and that computer is connected to the net, and when the webtools go online, it will be a character creating machine.
Stop the nonsense. Bill is bloody right, and you're not making any sense. I preferred the old CB too, but you won't persuade WotC of its merits with this kind of absurd argument.
Sorry to say this, but the one making no sense seems to be you.
There is no way, an online tool like this one will ever be more "portable" than an offline version of it.
The only thing you need to do, once you have downloaded and installed an offline CB on your PC, is to simply use it. If that PC is portable, so is the tool.
An online tool requires me to use a PC aswell, but it also requires an active connection to the internet. The only thing i dont have to do, is to install the tool itself. The moment i disconnect that PC or move somewhere without an internet connection, i can no longer use the tool.
And what do you want to tell me about the office workers? There was nothing that cept them from installing the CB and use it at their workingplace, unless their boss didnt allow it. Belive be, if he didnt want his men to use the offline CB at work, he sure as hell doesnt want them to waste time at work doing character creation online.
If they want to produce something that is more portable than the old CB, i expect a tool that runs in offline and online mode, so basicly an offline CB that is able to save my data online so i can access it using an online interface, once i am no longer sitting at my local PC.
If internet connectivity is your main gripe, there's really only one thing to say: Get over it. It's harsh, and it doesn't pain WotC in a very considerate light, but WotC has made it abundantly clear that this is the direction they're going in, and they won't consider changing. From a business standpoint, it's an extremely well motivated change, and asking for an offline character builder is essentially like asking Blizzard to make WoW available offline. It limits them, and what limits them ultimately limits what they are able to deliver to us.
WotC is being very considerate in addressing our concerns and requests these past few days, and they've already said that they intend on adding a slew of features that will be missing at launch. I am an "existing user" you referred to in your post, and the unambiguous benefit for me is this: I don't have to boot up a resource heavy virtual machine to get the CB running on my mac. I don't own a Windows PC, nor do I feel like spending several hundred dollars on one.
And here's another one for free, globally applicable: more frequent content updates with a faster response time to new content.
@Matthew: You know that cutting the cost to WotC means more money for development... right? Maybe hiring a few more programmers, or people to add content to the database.
If they want to produce something that is more portable than the old CB, i expect a tool that runs in offline and online mode, so basicly an offline CB that is able to save my data online so i can access it using an online interface, once i am no longer sitting at my local PC.
No no no. You're requesting they keep compiling and distributing their entire CB database, a redundancy that requires manpower to make, and then requesting online storage... That's an entire different service which already exists, and it's called Dropbox.
You're asking WotC to continue supporting a product which has proven to be an inefficient use of their developers time, and has extremely low potential for interaction between released toolsets. If they were to release a campaign management tool tomorrow that wants to access data from the character builder, it presumes the DM has all the .dnd4e files ready and available for use. You're thinking they're going to be hosting these characters as .dnd4e files - they're more than likely not! They're going to be in an indexed database. It's why they don't have export available on launch.
Going online means the DM could add his players to a friend list, and they could add whatever PCs they wanted to use in a campaign at the DMs discretion. He could then take monsters he built (from the same database) and upload them into an encounter he's been working on for a while, and run combat online, adding XP and rewards to the PCs as needed. He could then create a magical item using the item creator they release, also in the same database, and insert it directly into a PCs inventory, visible immediately to the owner of the PC.
This is all speculative, but putting characters in a single persistent database has a million applications that don't require the sharing of multiple created files between computers, and are available at every single Silverlight 4 enabled PC in the world with an internet access (which is a sizeable fraction of them). I think this is the direction they're aiming to take D&D in, and I think it's pretty exciting.
@Matthew: You know that cutting the cost to WotC means more money for development... right? Maybe hiring a few more programmers, or people to add content to the database.
Nono, I don't dispute that this change creates some advantage for WotC. Let's all take that as a given, I don't even think it matters what that is.
All I'm asking is; What is the unambiguous benefit, for us the existing users to the Character Builder being exclusively online?
@Matthew: You know that cutting the cost to WotC means more money for development... right? Maybe hiring a few more programmers, or people to add content to the database.
Nono, I don't dispute that this change creates some advantage for WotC. Let's all take that as a given, I don't even think it matters what that is.
All I'm asking is; What is the unambiguous benefit, for us the existing users to the Character Builder being exclusively online?
How are more developers to make more tools and add more content faster for we the people not an unambiguous benefit? None the less, see my previous post.
If you compare, in other words, the old software with the new, what *feature* are we gaining *in the new builder?*
Not what feature would you *like*, or what feature *might they add*, we can all think of lots of those. My question is in direct response to Bill Slavicsek's article.
What is the unambiguous benefit, for us the existing users to the Character Builder being exclusively online? What feature are we gaining, in the builder?
No no no.
What exactly are you "No no no"ing me for?
I simply said, that the most "portable" characterbuilding tool, usable at a PC, is the one, that i can use whereever i take my PC to and that I can use whereever i have access to a random PC and the internet.
Up until now, we had the first option of offline usage, from now on, we will only have the second one of online usage.
You're requesting they keep compiling and distributing their entire CB database, a redundancy that requires manpower to make, and then requesting online storage... That's an entire different service which already exists, and it's called Dropbox.
To make this one clear, i didnt request anything at all, i simply said, what i think, is one valid way to actually improve "portablility". If that means they have to keep doing what they did so far, that sounds only fair to me. I was sattisfied with the product as it was and so were many other users. If they want to change it, they have to make sure we stay sattisfied if they want us to be their customers. Who pays money for a product he doesnt want?
You're asking WotC to continue supporting a product which has proven to be an inefficient use of their developers time, and has extremely low potential for interaction between released toolsets.
Well they had enough "developers time" to maintain the old builder and develop this new onlinesystem in less than six month, seems like a lot of free workpower for me.
And what is this talk about "interaction"? There are no tools to interact with on the first place, as far as it concearns any use for the customer. If there will ever be a VTT to be released, that is the time i will be glad to have that sort of potential conectablility.
If they were able to maintain an offline tool up until now, and an online tool is very easy to maintain, then they shall do both at the same time if they want to have an online only product.
The last thing i want as a customer, is a product that looses functions that i wanted to have, in order to be compatible with something that doesnt exist yet.
If they were to release a campaign management tool tomorrow that wants to access data from the character builder, it presumes the DM has all the .dnd4e files ready and available for use. You're thinking they're going to be hosting these characters as .dnd4e files - they're more than likely not! They're going to be in an indexed database. It's why they don't have export available on launch.
So you dont know how they host their data, but you are sure it isnt the way required to make my idea an usable alternative at this time?
I dont expect them to have the product id like to see, ready for release, but not released yet to make me angry. All i say, is that it whould be possible to provide a product that combines what we had and what they want us to have, with little more effort than they allready invest now.
If this requires changes that are managable and they are willing to do it, they shall go ahead.
If they dont want to do the extra work, the least thing i expect as a customer is to maintain the "status quo" and not switch to a system that gives them more freedom and controll and leaves us with less quality and functionabilty.
All I'm asking is; What is the unambiguous benefit, for us the existing users to the Character Builder being exclusively online?
I will be able to make Character Sheets from all of my office computers, instead of needing my laptop.
I won't need to install content on my own hard drive.
I won't risk using a not updated tool - as long as I got access to it, it's updated to the last patch.
There's a solid list of benefits - do they really matter? About as much as not being able to use the tools offline matter.
Once again, Internet is everywhere these days. If you want to have internet where there's no internet, you can achieve that. Expecting WotC to modify their business plan to accomodate for something that is entirely indipendent from them (ie your access to the net) because at some point the tools worked without requiring internet is unreasonable.
The service is perfectly functional, and for the vast majority of people it will be as accessible if not more than before. The fact that you can't do character sheets on the tube* is certainly not on any priority list. It's simply irrelevant. You can't ask a company to plan a web based set of tools around people who have no internet access.
All I'm asking is; What is the unambiguous benefit, for us the existing users to the Character Builder being exclusively online?
I will be able to make Character Sheets from all of my office computers, instead of needing my laptop.
Yes you are. If you don't already have Silverlight installed you are going to need to download and install that. Then that Silverlight component is going to download and install an about 13MB large Character Builder application that is run inside your web browser according to Paolo
All I'm asking is; What is the unambiguous benefit, for us the existing users to the Character Builder being exclusively online?
Once again, Internet is everywhere these days. If you want to have internet where there's no internet, you can achieve that. Expecting WotC to modify their business plan to accomodate for something that is entirely indipendent from them (ie your access to the net) because at some point the tools worked without requiring internet is unreasonable.
Perhaps where you are, lucky person!
Sorry to say this, but the one making no sense seems to be you.
There is no way, an online tool like this one will ever be more "portable" than an offline version of it.
You're not looking at it with a business perspective. A browser based application is infinitely more portable than an hefty download with limited monthly updates that, IIRC, doesn't even work on Mac.
There's no possible comparison.
Look at these boards. Now ask yourself how many of the people posting here had access to their CB while posting on these boards. All the people who posted messages from computers other than their home ones (or computers where they could install their own .exes) can, with the new tools, access the CB ANYTIME.
The only sensible complaint is that of those who complain their stores have no wifi, but that's not something WotC should take charge of.
The only thing you need to do, once you have downloaded and installed an offline CB on your PC, is to simply use it. If that PC is portable, so is the tool.
And that's why this solution improves portability.
Does the entirety of the CB userbase own a computer? Yes. 100% of the CB users have a computer.
Is each one of those computers a laptop? No. Quite likely far less than half the CB userbase uses a laptop.
If you still can't see how portability is exponentially increased I dunno what.
An online tool requires me to use a PC aswell, but it also requires an active connection to the internet. The only thing i dont have to do, is to install the tool itself. The moment i disconnect that PC or move somewhere without an internet connection, i can no longer use the tool.
True. Is this a relevant problem?
Let's analize it.
1) when are you connected to the net?
- at work
- at home
- in net cafes
- in most stores
2) when are you not connected to the net?
- while moving or traveling
- in isolated areas
- in stores with no wifi support
Conclusion: of all these places, where are you most likely to have the time to access the tools and modify character sheets?
Making characters on the sub is not a primary need for a RPG. Not a single cent or second should be wasted on working on that. There's simply no userbase for that. It's completely irrelevant.
You could argue that you could make characters while flying before. Now you can't anymore. You lost some versatility? Yes. It is a problem worth considering? No.
Once again, the only sensible issue is not having access to the CB at your LGS. A problem that isn't up WotC to fix.
And what do you want to tell me about the office workers? There was nothing that cept them from installing the CB and use it at their workingplace, unless their boss didnt allow it.
"Boss, can I install this gaming tool on my work computer?". Be serious, please.
Belive be, if he didnt want his men to use the offline CB at work, he sure as hell doesnt want them to waste time at work doing character creation online.
False. The vast majority of workplaces don't give admin passwords to workers (so they can't install anything); yet the majority of people wasting time on Youtube is workers. Besides, if you're right then what's the problem? You can't use it at work now. It's not like you could before.
If they want to produce something that is more portable than the old CB, i expect a tool that runs in offline and online mode, so basicly an offline CB that is able to save my data online so i can access it using an online interface, once i am no longer sitting at my local PC.
You're failing to see the power of portability.
With this system, you don't have a laptop or you don't want to take it around, you log on your pc, make your character, go to your friend, log in on his computer with your account, and you still have your character. You can go to a net cafe and retrain talents. You can scroll through powers during your coffee break.
Your argument is absolutely illogical. A web based tool is infinitely more portable that your laptop. As long as *someone* has a computer at the table, *everyone* has access to their characters.
[offline/online rant]
It probably never occured to you that some people don't play at the exact same spot they use for role playing.
All I'm asking is; What is the unambiguous benefit, for us the existing users to the Character Builder being exclusively online?
Once again, Internet is everywhere these days. If you want to have internet where there's no internet, you can achieve that. Expecting WotC to modify their business plan to accomodate for something that is entirely indipendent from them (ie your access to the net) because at some point the tools worked without requiring internet is unreasonable.
Perhaps where you are, lucky person!
Once again, not WotC's problem. If they find out that people unsubscribes to DDI because they have very limited access to the web, they'll consider the option of improving offline portability.
But the entire DDI package is based on access to the net. It would help the discussion if someone started citing situations where internet isn't accessible and using the CB is needed. The only sensible example so far is stores, and that is something the storekeeper can solve at zero cost. Heck, as long as he has a printer and a computer (99% of gaming stores do, for sure) you don't even need wifi. And every store has a computer and internet. EVERY SINGLE ONE. If it doesn't, it's not WotC's problem; they need to plan on the majority of users.
Can you please cite a single situation where it would have been sensible to expect being able to use the CB and that won't be possible anymore with the new tools?
[offline/online rant]
It probably never occured to you that some people don't play at the exact same spot they use for role playing.
Eh? I think you mistyped something there. Care to explain?
All I'm asking is; What is the unambiguous benefit, for us the existing users to the Character Builder being exclusively online?
Once again, Internet is everywhere these days. If you want to have internet where there's no internet, you can achieve that. Expecting WotC to modify their business plan to accomodate for something that is entirely indipendent from them (ie your access to the net) because at some point the tools worked without requiring internet is unreasonable.
Perhaps where you are, lucky person!
Once again, not WotC's problem. If they find out that people unsubscribes to DDI because they have very limited access to the web, they'll consider the option of improving offline portability.
But the entire DDI package is based on access to the net. It would help the discussion if someone started citing situations where internet isn't accessible and using the CB is needed. The only sensible example so far is stores, and that is something the storekeeper can solve at zero cost. Heck, as long as he has a printer and a computer (99% of gaming stores do, for sure) you don't even need wifi. And every store has a computer and internet. EVERY SINGLE ONE. If it doesn't, it's not WotC's problem; they need to plan on the majority of users.
Can you please cite a single situation where it would have been sensible to expect being able to use the CB and that won't be possible anymore with the new tools?
See above. I also play once a week at a Role Playing Club locale with no wired or wireless internet.
[offline/online rant]
It probably never occured to you that some people don't play at the exact same spot they use for role playing.
Eh? I think you mistyped something there. Care to explain?
Yes, it was a freudian mistype. I meant to write "people don't post [on the forum] at the exact same spot they use for role playing.
I will be able to make Character Sheets from all of my office computers, instead of needing my laptop.
You dont need your laptop to use the old CB on an office PC. What sort of strange logic is this? The only thing you need is to install it a single time on the PC you want to use it. If you cant install the program on that PC, there will be a good reason you cant do so, maybe your boss dont want you to spend time on something he doesnt pay you for while you are at work.
I won't need to install content on my own hard drive.
That is not a feature of the online tools and from a logical standpoint it is even completely wrong. What do you think the temporary internet files on your PC are? They are downloaded content that is loaded to your harddrive. If it takes 1 min of downloading data while using the online tools, that is literally the same as "installing" whatever data you need to interact with the tool.
I won't risk using a not updated tool - as long as I got access to it, it's updated to the last patch.
What are you risking here? If you use an onlinetool it is up to date as long as you can access it.
If you use the offline CB, the first thing it does is to check for an active internet connection and tells you, if there are any updates available. So Whenerver you whould be able to use the online tools, you are also able to use the offline tools with the newest version.
If you dont have an internet connection, you might not be able to check for updates, but you whould not have been able to use the online tools at such a time in the first place.
Once again, Internet is everywhere these days. If you want to have internet where there's no internet, you can achieve that. Expecting WotC to modify their business plan to accomodate for something that is entirely indipendent from them (ie your access to the net) because at some point the tools worked without requiring internet is unreasonable.
The service is perfectly functional, and for the vast majority of people it will be as accessible if not more than before. The fact that you can't do character sheets on the tube* is certainly not on any priority list. It's simply irrelevant. You can't ask a company to plan a web based set of tools around people who have no internet access.
Unless you have some sort of wireless internet device that allows you to log in from allmost everywhere, you dont meet those requirements.
This is a product people pay for in advance to use it, so did so for 12 month. It wasnt a requrement to have internettaccess 24/7 to subscribe, nor did anyone tell the customers they will have to buy that sort of connection device to use the product. When i subscribed, the only thing i need to do was download the tool once to use it. Now i have to buy a second product i dont want to, to use the features i had so far and noone told me in advance i whould have to do so. So now i have a running subscribtion for a product i can no longer use with the resources i had when subscribing.
BUT, sometime "soon" it will surpass what the CB classic does now. That is also pretty much guaranteed. And, moving forward, the benefits of it being online - specifically the fact that all the online tools can be made to easily share information - will far outweigh the short term disadvantages of the online tool on launch.
I see it as one step back, three steps forward. And during the time that we take that 1 step back I'll continue to use the offline CB as it's still pretty much fully up to date.
I won't need to install content on my own hard drive.
That is not a feature of the online tools and from a logical standpoint it is even completely wrong. What do you think the temporary internet files on your PC are? They are downloaded content that is loaded to your harddrive. If it takes 1 min of downloading data while using the online tools, that is literally the same as "installing" whatever data you need to interact with the tool.
That's not one hundred percent true either, the new character builder downloads exacutable code and installs it, it is not doing this in the cache, but actually installing an application that is permanently stored (until manually removed). That application is launched inside the Silverlight runtime, which in turn runs inside the web browser.
All I'm asking is; What is the unambiguous benefit, for us the existing users to the Character Builder being exclusively online?
I will be able to make Character Sheets from all of my office computers, instead of needing my laptop.
I won't need to install content on my own hard drive.
I won't risk using a not updated tool - as long as I got access to it, it's updated to the last patch.
There's a solid list of benefits - do they really matter? About as much as not being able to use the tools offline matter.
I regularly go to cons in hotels that charge for internet access.
Right now I can bring my character on my laptop. With the new version, I can do the same thing, but have to pay a daily toll to access my characters.
Presumably, if I cancel or are late with my DDI access, they will disable access to the character builder, meaning my characters are now held hostage by WOTC. (I can see how this benefits WOTC, I don't see how it benefits me.) Whereas right now if I cancel DDI, I merely lose the ability to update the CB, but can otherwise keep my characters.
The one really neat advantage of moving it to the web would be the ability to share character sheets with other people (say... your DM, or other people on the CO forums). But they say they won't do that, so that's that.
It's looking like I won't renew DDI the next time it comes around.
I think it is safe to say that when it releases the new CB will be worse than the CB classic. We already know it will release with less functionality than the CB classic. Granted.
BUT, sometime "soon" it will surpass what the CB classic does now. That is also pretty much guaranteed. And, moving forward, the benefits of it being online - specifically the fact that all the online tools can be made to easily share information - will far outweigh the short term disadvantages of the online tool on launch.
I see it as one step back, three steps forward. And during the time that we take that 1 step back I'll continue to use the offline CB as it's still pretty much fully up to date.
That is more or less my thought also. I like not having to boot inot windows and most (not all) of my gaming is where I have WiFi or corded internet. I also happen to like the Essentials layout as well as the prospect of a better framework for Paolo et al to update new content and rules much easier. The general layout of the tools seems fine and I suspect it will be a little faster than the current slow thing. In the long run this may very well be better, but I am (and one of my groups are) currently so put off that we will start a non-D&D campaign in a few weeks as we finish the current.
I think it is safe to say that when it releases the new CB will be worse than the CB classic. We already know it will release with less functionality than the CB classic. Granted.
BUT, sometime "soon" it will surpass what the CB classic does now. That is also pretty much guaranteed. And, moving forward, the benefits of it being online - specifically the fact that all the online tools can be made to easily share information - will far outweigh the short term disadvantages of the online tool on launch.
I see it as one step back, three steps forward. And during the time that we take that 1 step back I'll continue to use the offline CB as it's still pretty much fully up to date.
The problem is, it depends very much on your personal resources. If i keep my internet access as it is and dont invest about 30$/month to be able to connect at places i have an UMTS net or the like available, i wont be able to use the tool the way i used to, ever again.
Sure there will be a time it has some new features the old one didnt, but those wont replace the features i had and it is up to me to decide if what i gain is an equal compensation for what i have lost.
To addept your "step" picture: If one step back is all it needs to make me fall off the cliff, i wont be able to get up ever again once i fell down. Those three steps forward, might do nothing more than make me run against the wall of the cliff, which is now right in front of me.
The problem is, it depends very much on your personal resources. If i keep my internet access as it is and dont invest about 30$/month to be able to connect at places i have an UMTS net or the like available, i wont be able to use the tool the way i used to, ever again.
Sure there will be a time it has some new features the old one didnt, but those wont replace the features i had and it is up to me to decide if what i gain is an equal compensation for what i have lost.
To addept your "step" picture: If one step back is all it needs to make me fall off the cliff, i wont be able to get up ever again once i fell down. Those three steps forward, might do nothing more than make me run against the wall of the cliff, which is now right in front of me.
Yes, this is true. And there are clearly (from the huge amount of posts about it) a bunch of people who wont be able to, or will take the choice not to, take the steps forward due to lack of internet access.
To me, this is a benefit. I can see there are a lot of people to whom this is a big step back. But I really do think that moving forward the internet is just going to get more and more prevalent rather than less so. And I think cloud computing is the way forward, I really do.
Can you please cite a single situation where it would have been sensible to expect being able to use the CB and that won't be possible anymore with the new tools?
I'll give you a selection, all of which will affect me:
- On the train to work, no wi-fi. And for 2/3 of the journey I'm nowhere near any cells for my 3G dongle to work, and even if it did transition from cell to cell causes frequent drop outs
- At work - we have limited internet access and an EM screened building, so even with my own computer I can't access the character builder
- The games club I play in has no free wi-fi access, I'm back to relatively limited and expensive 3G coverage
- 2 out of 3 cons I go to - limited wi-fi access and the more expensive of my 3G options for connection with very poor coverage in a couple of the locations
All four of those seems like sensible times/places to want to access the character builder. With these changes I won't be able to - hence why the dragon icon is missing from under my piccie.
Now I'm probably the sort of customer that WoTC doesn't really care about as I'm pretty choosy about what I buy - but there are loads of other 4E junkies I know and play with that are affected in the same way.
Cheers,
Ash
I think it is safe to say that when it releases the new CB will be worse than the CB classic. We already know it will release with less functionality than the CB classic. Granted.
BUT, sometime "soon" it will surpass what the CB classic does now. That is also pretty much guaranteed. And, moving forward, the benefits of it being online - specifically the fact that all the online tools can be made to easily share information - will far outweigh the short term disadvantages of the online tool on launch.
And all the advantages would be gone when Wizard kills it in a few years, which is about or less then *half* as long as I've used GMail by then. Are they still long term advantages in light of this?
By the way, "soon" may not be the best choice of word around here at this moment.
Yes, this is true. And there are clearly (from the huge amount of posts about it) a bunch of people who wont be able to, or will take the choice not to, take the steps forward due to lack of internet access.
To me, this is a benefit. I can see there are a lot of people to whom this is a big step back. But I really do think that moving forward the internet is just going to get more and more prevalent rather than less so. And I think cloud computing is the way forward, I really do.
Going online is definitly a good way to improve a product and moving vorward, the big mistake maken isnt the fact they produced those tools, what most people in my situation criticise, is the fact that they go online "only".
This tools whould be a great improvement, even for me, but this is only the case if they are an addition to what we had available up until now, not a replacement.
Going only "only" is like abandoning the old and sick in order to move on faster.
It is also false that there is no download and install for the web character builder. If your boss stops you from installing the OriginalCB, your boss will stop you installing the WebCB as well. So that is dusted as an argument.
So the WCB drained resources from refinenment and improvement of the OCB and offers what exactly to improve it that couldn't have been done with the OCB? The answer is "Mac Support". We best hope that "Mac Support" pulls a lot of subscriptions because there is no trying the WCB before you buy - just videos. There will be losses from current subscribers that need to be replaced.
Now I'm actually pretty OK with the idea of web tools - that actually seems to me to be the way to really move forward and get to the VTT we were promised back in the day. But frankly the people at WotC seem to have no idea where to go or how to get there. Bill talking about "tablets and mobile devices" (for whom the WCB is a non-option) and "computer-like devices" (again no hope of WCB) just seem to be symptoms of a larger problem. This sort of stuff worries me.
Now I'm not cancelling my subscription, but I would have not renewed for 12 months had I known this was the immediate future. I hope that in the next 12 months WotC really does some good stuff with their Web tools and makes me glad I re-subbed before the current events started. But right now I'm looking at the train wreck of two tools I have loved using and their replacement is incomplete and offers a significant downgrade for many of my immediate fellow gamers. This leads me to being ambivalent.
I'm hopefull for the future, but I'm feeling let down by the now.
And all the advantages would be gone when Wizard kills it in a few years, which is about or less then *half* as long as I've used GMail by then. Are they still long term advantages in light of this?
By the way, "soon" may not be the best choice of word around here at this moment.
When you talk about Wizard killing this in a few years I think that is unlikely. Why? Sure we'll go to 5th Edition about that time but think of this: 5E will be almost entirely online or at least will be hugely supported with online stuff. So if they kill off 4E support when 5E comes out and they shaft loads of people who are playing and wanting to continue playing 4E then that will be a good reason for people not to go to 5E, because they'lll see they'll get shafted when 6E comes out. It's important that Wizards support 4E DDi after the life of 4E for that reason.
And the choice of "soon" was a deliberate one.
@djordi: I won't comment on your "20 character limit" and "no exporting" comments, because WotC has addressed these issues, and I'll just presume you haven't read about that yet.
Can you point me to this info please, the part abut the 20 chr answer from WotC, I have not seen it and frankly, not sure I want to scoure 100000000000000 posts to find it, thanks in advance!
@djordi: I won't comment on your "20 character limit" and "no exporting" comments, because WotC has addressed these issues, and I'll just presume you haven't read about that yet.
Can you point me to this info please, the part abut the 20 chr answer from WotC, I have not seen it and frankly, not sure I want to scoure 100000000000000 posts to find it, thanks in advance!
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
There you go, just scroll to Trevors post.
-can download character onto any computer from the cloud; can't leave it at home
-more convienent to do micro updates; faster updates and better feedback
-will eventually support virtual tabletop
Cons:
-have to pay subscription every month now or lose content and characters
-doesn't work if you don't have internet connection, or if WotC servers are too busy
-dark sun + essentials were 2.5 months late because of development of this
@djordi: I won't comment on your "20 character limit" and "no exporting" comments, because WotC has addressed these issues, and I'll just presume you haven't read about that yet.
Can you point me to this info please, the part abut the 20 chr answer from WotC, I have not seen it and frankly, not sure I want to scoure 100000000000000 posts to find it, thanks in advance!
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
There you go, just scroll to Trevors post.
Thank you!
Too many people subscribes for one month only. And even then, only one person in the group will pay for that month, and then send their password to everyone in the group. If you were CEO of a company, would that fact be troublesome to you ? Especially if you take into account that the CB costs a lot of money to operate and update.
We would all like addtionnal tools, but i'm pretty sure Wizards needs to prove that the CB is making more money that it's costing before adding any tools. One-month subscriber gimic (or pirating) is not helping Wizard do that at all. They probably took the decision to find a solution to pirating before adding any new tools.
No, what I'm saying is that I got a laptop, I take it with me fairly frequently and still I know that after the CB goes Web 2.0 I will have access to character creation infinitely more often then I did before.
And anyone can see that.
I won't have any more access than I did before.
With the old CB, I could use the CB on my home PCs, and on the PCs of those who also have the CB.
With the web-based tool... I can still only use it on my home PCs, and the PCs of those who also use the CB. I still can't use it on any computers at work or anywhere else I go, because none of those computers will have the Silverlight extension installed. When using any other computer, I'm not a colossal enough **** to just go ahead and install software, and for the most part it would not be possible to do so anyway.
See, some people are overlooking that the web-based CB does require a local software install. It's a software install that may already be there, but which probably won't be.
Anyway, I sent an e-mail to dndinsider@wizards.com about this column. I'll share it here, too:
Show
I just finished reading Bill’s Ampersand column for this month, and there are some quotations in the article that I take issue with.
“We are moving to a web-based solution to make the tools accessible to multiple platforms. The web-based solution makes it easier for us to react to new technology opportunities, such as tablets and mobile devices.”
“It’s ultimately portable. I can use it on any computer or computer-like device, wherever I am.”
Your multi-platform strategy completely fails to meet your stated goals, and is misleading to potential customers. By reading this, I would infer that the new web-based CB (wCB) is meant to support tablets and mobile devices, which is simply not the case. A customer could be misled by this into subscribing under the assumption that the tool will work with his mobile device, only to find out that it most certainly will not.
By building the tool with Silverlight, you’ve limited your supported platforms to Windows PCs and Macs. A few OS’s without Silverlight support include: Apple iOS (so no support for iPhone or iPad); any versions of Linux, including Android (so no support for Linux PCs, no Android-based smartphones or slates, and many netbooks); and Blackberry OS. Furthermore, it can be used only on computers that have Silverlight installed, which you certainly can do on any PC that you own – but any other PC, wherever you go, is unlikely to have Silverlight installed.
That is what you call ultimate portability? Please tell me, exactly, just what “tablets and mobile devices” or “computer-like devices” you think you’re supporting with this? I don’t think there’s a single mobile device that can run this, aside from laptops and the rarely seen Windows phone.
Another quote that bothers me is this: “We also wanted to move to a solution that promotes individual account ownership and hinders piracy.”
That plan backfired on you. At launch, the wCB will have no ability to share or export characters. What does this mean for the group I DM? It means that everyone in the group, including those that have their own DDI accounts, are now required to use my DDI account to make their characters. Unless we’re all using the same account, then I can’t access their characters. Until the wCB gets an export or sharing capability, those players that currently have their own DDI account and e-mail me their character files will no longer be able to use their DDI accounts to make characters.
As much as I applaud the initiative to take the CB back to the drawing board and rebuild it from the ground up (as a poorly architected and inadequately extensible design, it needed it), your implementation leaves much to be desired. The development of this tool has led to delayed and missed updates for months, and Dark Sun content is arriving more than two months over-due. What did those months of failed service buy for us, the subscribers? All we get is a tool that supplants one we already have, while offering only a subset of the functionality previously available. For anyone who is not a Mac user, I find it hard to see the up side in any of this.
No, what I'm saying is that I got a laptop, I take it with me fairly frequently and still I know that after the CB goes Web 2.0 I will have access to character creation infinitely more often then I did before.
And anyone can see that.
I won't have any more access than I did before.
With the old CB, I could use the CB on my home PCs, and on the PCs of those who also have the CB.
With the web-based tool... I can still only use it on my home PCs, and the PCs of those who also use the CB. I still can't use it on any computers at work or anywhere else I go, because none of those computers will have the Silverlight extension installed. When using any other computer, I'm not a colossal enough **** to just go ahead and install software, and for the most part it would not be possible to do so anyway.
As you wouldn't have your character sheets on their computer, it would be pointless. Unless you are saying that emailing your .dnd4e files and hoping the CB doesn't mess them up when loading (hint: it will) is a "more portable" solution.
WotC's point on portability is completely right. It's impossible to make a sensible argument against it. With the new system, you can do whatever you did in the past and more, except in those situations where no net is available (which border on the next to nothing side of things).
The counter arguments we have tend to point at people playing in places with no Internet; honestly I find that puzzling. I play at my place, at my players' places, at my LGS, at my local game club and often in the conference room of my company. Every single place is wi fi connected, and I live in Italy, which is a dinosaur in terms of e-infrastructures.
More importantly, I'm sort of puzzled by the idea of people playing in places without internet but still having a printer and power available for all the other CB connected operations, with explanations that seem to border on the "I need the CB while LARPing in the woods!" side of things. The core issue here is that before discussing how often such a situation would arise, one could begin questioning how essential is the availability of the CB at the gaming table to begin with. How did people survive past editions and playing every single other RPG on the planet?
That's what baffles me. It sounds like WotC is cutting the life support out of your games. If that's the case, the best advice would be considering if you've not begun to depend too much on the CB; but certainly given the amount of drama people is lifting over something that will be an issue for a tiny fraction of the gaming population in a tiny fraction of the possible gaming situations sounds suspicious. That's the point: the uproar is hard to justify in the light of the "diminished portability" because that is hardly a credible issue at all. So the next logic step is thinking that the uproar is actually over having to actually pay for the service.
Once they say ok, you access your account. Simple.
Same with the old way, if they didn't have the CB downloaded, you would have to do that first. Then wait for the updates, then load your character.
yall are only looking at part of what he said. he also said this will help them to combat piracy, and update the thing faster.
Well, I do agree that those are positive things and have nuthin' in particular to add to that, so I decided not to write anything about it.
With all the ranting and raving of the board this week I dont see how lack of internet connection is a problem for players.
Please, pay attention to what people actually write. Kind fellow forum user.
If it's an online tool, and you go to someone else's computer the only thing you need to do is install silverlight, so simply ask.
Once they say ok, you access your account. Simple.
Same with the old way, if they didn't have the CB downloaded, you would have to do that first. Then wait for the updates, then load your character.
Once they say ok, you install the character builder, then access your account. Simple.
(As Paolo has said before, Silverlight needs to download the 13MB character builder executable and install it before it can launch.)
If it's an online tool, and you go to someone else's computer the only thing you need to do is install silverlight, so simply ask.
Once they say ok, you access your account. Simple.
Same with the old way, if they didn't have the CB downloaded, you would have to do that first. Then wait for the updates, then load your character.
Once they say ok, you install the character builder, then access your account. Simple.
(As Paolo has said before, Silverlight needs to download the 13MB character builder executable and install it before it can launch.)
Oh have you taken me off block?
Internet Cafes. Hotel Internet rooms. Other shared Computers owned by a company, locked down to prevent users from installing anything.
Then you shouldn't be trying to use those computers in a way the OWNERS don't want you to. You certainly wouldn't have been able to download the old CB either on those computers, would you?
Nope.
Oh have you taken me off block?
Eh, what?
Oh have you taken me off block?
Eh, what?
You have me on block. Which means the only way you can respond to a post of mine is to actively look at it (by hitting quote), to see what I say.
You spent a long time accusing me of trolling and baiting, but to my way of thinking, anyone that has a person on block, and then goes out of their way to see what is hidden, to see if it's worth responding, is trolling the block person.
Since you responded, I thought maybe you had taken me off block.
But if I try and send a message, I see you still have be blocked. So...
Oh have you taken me off block?
Eh, what?
You have me on block. Which means the only way you can respond to a post of mine is to actively look at it (by hitting quote), to see what I say.
You spent a long time accusing me of trolling and baiting, but to my way of thinking, anyone that has a person on block, and then goes out of their way to see what is hidden, to see if it's worth responding, is trolling the block person.
Since you responded, I thought maybe you had taken me off block.
But if I try and send a message, I see you still have be blocked. So...
I get e-mails from you you, so I don't think I have you on block.
Then you shouldn't be trying to use those computers in a way the OWNERS don't want you to. You certainly wouldn't have been able to download the old CB either on those computers, would you?
Nope.
Agreed, but then that doesn't go to the "tremendous portability of the new system" that's being touted as the great benefit of the system.
Oh have you taken me off block?
Eh, what?
You have me on block. Which means the only way you can respond to a post of mine is to actively look at it (by hitting quote), to see what I say.
You spent a long time accusing me of trolling and baiting, but to my way of thinking, anyone that has a person on block, and then goes out of their way to see what is hidden, to see if it's worth responding, is trolling the block person.
Since you responded, I thought maybe you had taken me off block.
But if I try and send a message, I see you still have be blocked. So...
I get e-mails from you you, so I don't think I have you on block.
That was in the past. I just tried to send you one, and it said you have me blocked.
Then you shouldn't be trying to use those computers in a way the OWNERS don't want you to. You certainly wouldn't have been able to download the old CB either on those computers, would you?
Nope.
Wow. You need to travel more.
These are computers that I am renting by the hour. I am allowed to use them to surf the web. That's what they are there for. But I can't use this web tool (unless Silverlight was already installed)
No, I couldn't download the old CB either... but it's a common way people access the internet. And it's not really supported now, despite the hype.
The point here is that this tool is not available anywhere the internet is. It's available anywhere you can install software on a computer where the internet is. And you know what? That's where the old tool was available too... (except that the amount of software to install on a mac was a lot higher before.)
Internet Cafes. Hotel Internet rooms. Other shared Computers owned by a company, locked down to prevent users from installing anything.
With locked down computers you still aren't likely to be able to run it. If Silverlight isn't installed, you're hosed. If it requires downloading a file executable in Silverlight, you're hosed. Strictly speaking, this isn't an online app. It sounds like it's a localized app, with a networked database. At the very least, the programme front end is localized.
Then you shouldn't be trying to use those computers in a way the OWNERS don't want you to. You certainly wouldn't have been able to download the old CB either on those computers, would you?
Nope.
Wow. You need to travel more.
These are computers that I am renting by the hour. I am allowed to use them to surf the web. That's what they are there for. But I can't use this web tool (unless Silverlight was already installed)
No, I couldn't download the old CB either... but it's a common way people access the internet. And it's not really supported now, despite the hype.
The point here is that this tool is not available anywhere the internet is. It's available anywhere you can install software on a computer where the internet is. And you know what? That's where the old tool was available too... (except that the amount of software to install on a mac was a lot higher before.)
It's availble where ever the is internet. That doesn't mean it's usable on any device that can access the internet.
And I travel just fine. Like many people that travel, I have a laptop that I bring with me, if I need it.
(And, fwiw, by "Travel" I meant "outside the US, where people can't afford personal computers". Computer usage in, say, Thailand or Mexico is very different than Computer usage here.)
That's the point: the uproar is hard to justify in the light of the "diminished portability" because that is hardly a credible issue at all.
That would clearly depend upon who you are, and I promise you there are more gaps for internet connectivity where people have grown accumstomed to utilizing the character builder than you are willing to give credit. I would advise you to be more understanding that not everyone has the luxury of such easy internet access everywhere, though they may easily be able to carry a laptop. Having lived in multiple locations across the US in the past few years, I can say from direct experience that not as much of the world is as wired as we would all like to think (even for mobile phone service, let alone for reasonable internet access). I would also suggest you not make remarks that could be seen as suggesting that those who are upset due to perfectly reasonable disruptions of their use of the existing CB are less than scrupulous due to expressing such concerns. Regardless of how fiscally viable a model these individuals may be for WotC to plan for, they are still customers of WotC wanting to pay WotC for a product/service. By shifting to an online model, WotC has directly altered the value that many customers will gain. Please stop insulting and berating those who lost value merely because you and others gained.
Oh have you taken me off block?
Eh, what?
You have me on block. Which means the only way you can respond to a post of mine is to actively look at it (by hitting quote), to see what I say.
You spent a long time accusing me of trolling and baiting, but to my way of thinking, anyone that has a person on block, and then goes out of their way to see what is hidden, to see if it's worth responding, is trolling the block person.
Since you responded, I thought maybe you had taken me off block.
But if I try and send a message, I see you still have be blocked. So...
I get e-mails from you you, so I don't think I have you on block.
That was in the past. I just tried to send you one, and it said you have me blocked.
Where do I unblock you? I am a bit slow today, it seems.
Then you shouldn't be trying to use those computers in a way the OWNERS don't want you to. You certainly wouldn't have been able to download the old CB either on those computers, would you?
Nope.
Agreed, but then that doesn't go to the "tremendous portability of the new system" that's being touted as the great benefit of the system.
But so many people have portable devices. Which yes, the old CB could be put on and used the same way.
The point is, it's not being developed so that you can sit at any computer anywhere and access it. I don't think they even tried to imply that.
But if your group has DDi accounts, you don't need to bring your characters on a flash drive, or your lap top. If they have it, you can access your account and characters easier.
So we're agreed, that the "available anywhere you can get the internet" isn't really a feature? (If I have to bring my own laptop... I could have brought my own laptop with the old builder too...)
(And, fwiw, by "Travel" I meant "outside the US, where people can't afford personal computers". Computer usage in, say, Thailand or Mexico is very different than Computer usage here.)
Yup, agreed.
The point is, it's not being developed so that you can sit at any computer anywhere and access it. I don't think they even tried to imply that.
Quoting from the post referenced by the thread...
There are five things I really, really like about the new Character Builder.
- It’s ultimately portable. I can use it on any computer or computer-like device, wherever I am.
But so many people have portable devices. Which yes, the old CB could be put on and used the same way.
The point is, it's not being developed so that you can sit at any computer anywhere and access it. I don't think they even tried to imply that.
his ampersand exactly stresses that all you need to have is internet, and you could use the new web-based character builder.
look up the definition of world-wide-web. what the new CB does, does not fit. It's online, alright? But that does not make it a web-based tool. Silverlight is an Application Platform, just like Java or Flash - and at that, one that is even a lot less common than the other two.
The point is, it's not being developed so that you can sit at any computer anywhere and access it. I don't think they even tried to imply that.
Quoting from the post referenced by the thread...There are five things I really, really like about the new Character Builder.
- It’s ultimately portable. I can use it on any computer or computer-like device, wherever I am.
Ok, you are right, that's what they said.
Once again, Internet is everywhere these days.
Perhaps where you are, lucky person!
Yes, it bears noticing that internet is not always reliably available.
An internet connection for your laptop may not always be available (especially at Cons, where you would mostly need the tools)
My internet connection at home has a tendency to go down with irregular intervals.
And some locations block access to certain sites.
Now, there is the apparent advantage that every internet-enabled PC can potentially access the CB. But most could also potentially install the old one.
If you add that Silverlight, in my experience, is pretty horrible to install/keep up to date (with frequent issues and crashes), it may turn out that there is a sizable minority group that may have a problem accessing the CB.
That is not to say that minority is big enough that it is profitable to make change to accommodate their complaints, but it is still an issue.
Or, as us programmers prefer to call it: an undocumented feature :P
Gomez,
who makes lots of stuff for the web (in java and flash, and yes I fear SL soon) as a professional
The counter arguments we have tend to point at people playing in places with no Internet; honestly I find that puzzling. I play at my place, at my players' places, at my LGS, at my local game club and often in the conference room of my company. Every single place is wi fi connected, and I live in Italy, which is a dinosaur in terms of e-infrastructures.
More importantly, I'm sort of puzzled by the idea of people playing in places without internet but still having a printer and power available for all the other CB connected operations, with explanations that seem to border on the "I need the CB while LARPing in the woods!" side of things. The core issue here is that before discussing how often such a situation would arise, one could begin questioning how essential is the availability of the CB at the gaming table to begin with. How did people survive past editions and playing every single other RPG on the planet?
That's what baffles me. It sounds like WotC is cutting the life support out of your games. If that's the case, the best advice would be considering if you've not begun to depend too much on the CB; but certainly given the amount of drama people is lifting over something that will be an issue for a tiny fraction of the gaming population in a tiny fraction of the possible gaming situations sounds suspicious. That's the point: the uproar is hard to justify in the light of the "diminished portability" because that is hardly a credible issue at all. So the next logic step is thinking that the uproar is actually over having to actually pay for the service.
You're in Italy. Cool. Go to the side of a mountain, in the middle of a small village. Try to access the internet. Now. That's where I basically live.
I can get internet if I pay for it. And I have, hence this connection. But, now, in order to use Character Builder to make characters after the Encounters levelup next week, I have to get my game store wired for internet. (You know, Encounters. That thing we do to try to sell WotCs system to others). Alas, my game store doesn't have the $250 extra to get the internet installed there, let alone the $100ish extra per month to keep it.
So, basically, my wife and I are going to have to 1) buy internet for the whole store. or 2) tell WotC to F-off about character builder and do everything by hand. or 3) Just stop the Encounters stuff, because spending 15-20 minutes a piece to shepherd some of the Players through basic math is too much of a pain.
Because while I can build pretty much characters in multiple systems in my head, I don't want to have to build everyone's characters, for something that I'm volunteering for that Helps WotC.
"But why can't you let them make their own characters?" you might say. Some I do. Others, well, ... how to put this delicately... Didn't graduate at the top of the class, if you catch my drift. They have trouble adding d20 +7 vs AC. Without them getting DDI, I wouldn't trust what they brought me. And making a casual fan have to get a monthly subscription to something they don't know they'll like, for something that's supposed to be a casual thing, seems so wrong it feels like **** the players over.
The fact that WotC's decision frags up my ability to sell their product, and help both the bottom line of their company and my FLGS really seems short sighted. They're preventing piracy. Got it. But it keep me from selling their product/getting people into their game/showcasing the latest shiny toy without doing even more work or costing me even more money.
I'm happy dropping $50 a month on internet. I'm happy to drop for a year of DDI. I'm happy to run gamedays and Encounters for my store and WotC. And I'm looking forward to the new tools and seeing what DDI brings, so I'm not talking about cancelling our subscription or switching systems.
I'm providing my input on what this change does to me personally. I'm unhappy about the alternatives I have for running Encounters: More work, or More money, or just calling it quits.
And that's every Wednesday, or Every week while this is going on. It may just be one little gaming store in one little town. Our business might not be worth their time.
But I think it's good for them to hear some of the "tiny fraction of people in a tiny fraction of situations".
Break's over. Back to work.
All the best, and thanks for letting me say this.
Then you shouldn't be trying to use those computers in a way the OWNERS don't want you to. You certainly wouldn't have been able to download the old CB either on those computers, would you?
Nope.
Agreed, but then that doesn't go to the "tremendous portability of the new system" that's being touted as the great benefit of the system.
The point is, it's not being developed so that you can sit at any computer anywhere and access it. I don't think they even tried to imply that.
blink blink
So am I the only one who read what was written and automatically appended the idea that "of course the computer would have to be a computer that allowed installation of other software" to the statement?
So am I the only one who read what was written and automatically appended the idea that "of course the computer would have to be a computer that allowed installation of other software" to the statement?
this is countered by the "portability" they want to achieve. real portability is this:
find any pc-like device. turn it on. find the browser. log on to wotc. surf your character.
this has nothing to do with ardous installations of any other software.
that's true cross-platform, that's how the WEB should be. all those DRM and plugins just pollute it. it's quite likely nothing that T.B.L. ever wanted when he invented the WWW
Then you shouldn't be trying to use those computers in a way the OWNERS don't want you to. You certainly wouldn't have been able to download the old CB either on those computers, would you?
Nope.
Agreed, but then that doesn't go to the "tremendous portability of the new system" that's being touted as the great benefit of the system.
The point is, it's not being developed so that you can sit at any computer anywhere and access it. I don't think they even tried to imply that.
blink blink
So am I the only one who read what was written and automatically appended the idea that "of course the computer would have to be a computer that allowed installation of other software" to the statement?
No, I thought that too. That I can't use it, if I'm using a rented or pay for use computer, because you aren't allowed to install software on those. I'm mean, that's just common sense.
But if you take what they wrote, literally, everyone is right. You can't access it from just any computer.
WoTC should take a course in literal writing, because it seems it customers only read everything literally.
Then you shouldn't be trying to use those computers in a way the OWNERS don't want you to. You certainly wouldn't have been able to download the old CB either on those computers, would you?
Nope.
Agreed, but then that doesn't go to the "tremendous portability of the new system" that's being touted as the great benefit of the system.
The point is, it's not being developed so that you can sit at any computer anywhere and access it. I don't think they even tried to imply that.
blink blink
So am I the only one who read what was written and automatically appended the idea that "of course the computer would have to be a computer that allowed installation of other software" to the statement?
No, I thought that too. That I can't use it, if I'm using a rented or pay for use computer, because you aren't allowed to install software on those. I'm mean, that's just common sense.
But if you take what they wrote, literally, everyone is right. You can't access it from just any computer.
WoTC should take a course in literal writing, because it seems it customers only read everything literally.
Well, RAW usually trumps RAI around here, that's not news.
That's the point: the uproar is hard to justify in the light of the "diminished portability" because that is hardly a credible issue at all.
That would clearly depend upon who you are, and I promise you there are more gaps for internet connectivity where people have grown accumstomed to utilizing the character builder than you are willing to give credit. I would advise you to be more understanding that not everyone has the luxury of such easy internet access everywhere, though they may easily be able to carry a laptop. Having lived in multiple locations across the US in the past few years, I can say from direct experience that not as much of the world is as wired as we would all like to think (even for mobile phone service, let alone for reasonable internet access). I would also suggest you not make remarks that could be seen as suggesting that those who are upset due to perfectly reasonable disruptions of their use of the existing CB are less than scrupulous due to expressing such concerns. Regardless of how fiscally viable a model these individuals may be for WotC to plan for, they are still customers of WotC wanting to pay WotC for a product/service. By shifting to an online model, WotC has directly altered the value that many customers will gain. Please stop insulting and berating those who lost value merely because you and others gained.
There's no insulting and no berating; later in the thread someone suggests me to try and go to a mountainside location; I live in a mountainside location. I got my first flat DSL connection last summer (it's crap, btw).
That's not the point. The point is that the interest of those who would like to access a character creation tool outside of their home or their workplace or a net cafe or a wifi covered store aren't the kind of target you invest money in pleasing, because they are quite likely an extremely tiny minority and the "damage" they suffer is hardly justifiable as real.
This kind of complaint has as much weight as someone complaining they can't play their MMO in the subway. Yes, you could before but the company changed the service and the service is still perfectly accessible and while your comfort with it is diminished, you've not being hit in your human rights. Life goes on.
The point here is that people all over the world is playing Shadowrun, Pathfinder, White Wolf games, GURPS and all that all the time without needing any DDI tools. We played D&D 30 years without needing DDI tools. Acting like if being unable to use the DDI tools underground or in remote corners of the countryside means you've been shut off of a primary gaming need is an absurd exaggeration, and as I've said before it casts more than one shadow on the motives of the uproar.
Try to look at the situation from the outside: WotC introduces a change that will force users to pay 3-7 times as much for a service they got almost for free, and oddly the entire uproar is apparently about being unable to access the service because it requires an internet connection. Yet these same people have the free time at a net-connected terminal to post multiple times a day about it. Isn't it at least a bit baffling?
It's not like I'm in love with this change. I preferred the old CB, by a sensible margin. But this reaction is nothing short of histerical. It's like suddenly we can't play D&D anymore if we can't access the CB 24/7.
Then you shouldn't be trying to use those computers in a way the OWNERS don't want you to. You certainly wouldn't have been able to download the old CB either on those computers, would you?
Nope.
Agreed, but then that doesn't go to the "tremendous portability of the new system" that's being touted as the great benefit of the system.
The point is, it's not being developed so that you can sit at any computer anywhere and access it. I don't think they even tried to imply that.
blink blink
So am I the only one who read what was written and automatically appended the idea that "of course the computer would have to be a computer that allowed installation of other software" to the statement?
No, I thought that too. That I can't use it, if I'm using a rented or pay for use computer, because you aren't allowed to install software on those. I'm mean, that's just common sense.
But if you take what they wrote, literally, everyone is right. You can't access it from just any computer.
WoTC should take a course in literal writing, because it seems it customers only read everything literally.
Well, RAW usually trumps RAI around here, that's not news.
Which is so odd, because even the rules say use them as you see fit. Which means they advocate RAI over RAW.
You're in Italy. Cool. Go to the side of a mountain, in the middle of a small village. Try to access the internet. Now. That's where I basically live.
Same. I got access to the first DSL connection last summer and it still sucks. Meanwhile the consoles I own introduced innovations like 2gb demo downloads and computer games where built assuming the end user was playing under 100 ms of latency. I don't think I should ask these company to stop offering services I don't have access too for reasons they have no fault in.
My point is that if you're not "wired", and you don't have comfortable access to the net, you have an arm long list of people to blame before WotC. What WotC is doing is perfectly sensible and will not cause any harm to the vast majority of the gaming population. People like us will be less comfortable, and yes it will suck to be us, but it's no different from when everyone was playing Halo 2 and I was surfing the net on a 56k connection. It wasn't Bungie's fault.
(Incidentally consider the probably minimal volume of transferred data, dial-up could be viable for usage of the new CB).
I can get internet if I pay for it. And I have, hence this connection. But, now, in order to use Character Builder to make characters after the Encounters levelup next week, I have to get my game store wired for internet. (You know, Encounters. That thing we do to try to sell WotCs system to others). Alas, my game store doesn't have the $250 extra to get the internet installed there, let alone the $100ish extra per month to keep it.
So you don't have Internet at your store; I guess you receive work emails at home.
Having a gaming store and no access to the net must be a total pain; I completely sympathize with your situation but do you understand how impossibly rare your situation is?
To use a metaphor, every war has its victims and the good guys are those that die young. You're probably the last person who deserves to be negatively affected by this situation, but how can we justify catering to you from a business perspective? Doesn't make it more fair, but I doubt you can expect a multinational company to plan business on this kind of rare situation.
I'm providing my input on what this change does to me personally. I'm unhappy about the alternatives I have for running Encounters: More work, or More money, or just calling it quits.
And that's every Wednesday, or Every week while this is going on. It may just be one little gaming store in one little town. Our business might not be worth their time.
But I think it's good for them to hear some of the "tiny fraction of people in a tiny fraction of situations".
As I said above, this is the kind of sensible complaint that has no hope of being listened to. If I was at the head of WotC and had to solve your problem (and I would be sincerely interested in trying, since mole and mortar business is what keeps me alive) I wouldn't know where to start. Or rather, I would. I would give stores that support me through running Encounters free access to the DDI. It could be a start, I don't know.
The problem stands that we (who liked the old CB format better) don't have anything solid to oppose to WotC's need to fight the problems the old DDI plan brought to their business.
So am I the only one who read what was written and automatically appended the idea that "of course the computer would have to be a computer that allowed installation of other software" to the statement?
The issue is that limit keeps the "feature" from actually being a significant feature. And yet they're advertising it as a significant feature. (If I can install software, I can install the old builder. If I can't, I can't install silverlight, and can't use the new builder. The only real change is that the amount of software to install on a mac, and the price of that software (XP license) plumetted.)
While I have my own view, I can see that these people have a valid request. They have a desire to use a digital character at the table. Tables in my experience will seldom have internet access. Offline is needed for them to play the way they want to play.
Can they do without it? Sure! Probably 30%+ of my gaming career was before laptops or any character generator. But what they want is to be able to use the tool anywhere at any gaming table.
While it would be nice to say that in the near future internet access will be everywhere, this is far from true. I travel (and game) all over the planet and wi-fi is a precious rarity even in very modern locations. Most high end international hotels will not have free wi-fi, for example, even in the States.
The idea that the new CB is more "everywhere" than the previous CB is false. While it doesn't impact me greatly, I can understand how this is a big drawback to many.
Bottom line though, I would ask both sides to respect one another. Respect those that want to have an offline CB and respect those that don't need the feature. We are all playing the same game we love.
So am I the only one who read what was written and automatically appended the idea that "of course the computer would have to be a computer that allowed installation of other software" to the statement?
The issue is that limit keeps the "feature" from actually being a significant feature. And yet they're advertising it as a significant feature. (If I can install software, I can install the old builder. If I can't, I can't install silverlight, and can't use the new builder. The only real change is that the amount of software to install on a mac, and the price of that software (XP license) plumetted.)
The advertised features that bother me more than this are (emphasis mine):
The web-based solution makes it easier for us to react to new technology opportunities, such as tablets and mobile devices.
I can use it on any computer or computer-like device, wherever I am.
I've sent an e-mail to them asking if they could tell me exactly what devices they're referring to that can use the web-based CB, because as far as I know, none can other than Windows phones. Windows phones being extremely popular in comparison to other mobile devices, of course.
So am I the only one who read what was written and automatically appended the idea that "of course the computer would have to be a computer that allowed installation of other software" to the statement?
The issue is that limit keeps the "feature" from actually being a significant feature. And yet they're advertising it as a significant feature. (If I can install software, I can install the old builder. If I can't, I can't install silverlight, and can't use the new builder. The only real change is that the amount of software to install on a mac, and the price of that software (XP license) plumetted.)
I honestly read their statements meaning that you don't have to worry about sending a copy of your character, or bringing it on a flash drive or your own laptop when you game. If your friend has a computer and a DDI account, you can access your account without having to any of that.
I read it from the point of view of when you are gaming, not from a point of view of something to do in your off time. But apparently, there are lots of people who just sit around making up characters for the fun of it.
Which is so odd, because even the rules say use them as you see fit. Which means they advocate RAI over RAW.
No silly! That is RAW! :p
I read it from the point of view of when you are gaming
Ah. I use Dropbox to store my characters, so I was already sufficiently cloud-enabled from that point of view.
All I'm asking is; What is the unambiguous benefit, for us the existing users to the Character Builder being exclusively online?
Once again, Internet is everywhere these days. If you want to have internet where there's no internet, you can achieve that. Expecting WotC to modify their business plan to accomodate for something that is entirely indipendent from them (ie your access to the net) because at some point the tools worked without requiring internet is unreasonable.
Perhaps where you are, lucky person!
Once again, not WotC's problem. If they find out that people unsubscribes to DDI because they have very limited access to the web, they'll consider the option of improving offline portability.
But the entire DDI package is based on access to the net. It would help the discussion if someone started citing situations where internet isn't accessible and using the CB is needed. The only sensible example so far is stores, and that is something the storekeeper can solve at zero cost. Heck, as long as he has a printer and a computer (99% of gaming stores do, for sure) you don't even need wifi. And every store has a computer and internet. EVERY SINGLE ONE. If it doesn't, it's not WotC's problem; they need to plan on the majority of users.
Can you please cite a single situation where it would have been sensible to expect being able to use the CB and that won't be possible anymore with the new tools?
I personally know this to be a fact. Deployed soldiers in their downtime have and do use the classic CB, creating many hundreds of characters for fun, to start a quick pick up game, to fill the time between duties, to create their own campaign, and so on. As internet access is severely restricted for these individuals, having the tool offline is a must, and they would update when they had a chance and internet access. Because of several reasons (location, security of troop location, and others), this group of people (thousands of people) simply cannot have internet access at-will, all the time, and thus will not be able to utilize these new tools.
Currently, it is at 65%, according to www.riastats.com/#
Also, I *think* that Windows auto-update will install it as well. (Not, not sure, I have it on both of mine and I don't recall if I said yes, or if it did it automagically.)
All I'm asking is; What is the unambiguous benefit, for us the existing users to the Character Builder being exclusively online?
Once again, Internet is everywhere these days. If you want to have internet where there's no internet, you can achieve that. Expecting WotC to modify their business plan to accomodate for something that is entirely indipendent from them (ie your access to the net) because at some point the tools worked without requiring internet is unreasonable.
Perhaps where you are, lucky person!
Once again, not WotC's problem. If they find out that people unsubscribes to DDI because they have very limited access to the web, they'll consider the option of improving offline portability.
But the entire DDI package is based on access to the net. It would help the discussion if someone started citing situations where internet isn't accessible and using the CB is needed. The only sensible example so far is stores, and that is something the storekeeper can solve at zero cost. Heck, as long as he has a printer and a computer (99% of gaming stores do, for sure) you don't even need wifi. And every store has a computer and internet. EVERY SINGLE ONE. If it doesn't, it's not WotC's problem; they need to plan on the majority of users.
Can you please cite a single situation where it would have been sensible to expect being able to use the CB and that won't be possible anymore with the new tools?
I personally know this to be a fact. Deployed soldiers in their downtime have and do use the classic CB, creating many hundreds of characters for fun, to start a quick pick up game, to fill the time between duties, to create their own campaign, and so on. As internet access is severely restricted for these individuals, having the tool offline is a must, and they would update when they had a chance and internet access. Because of several reasons (location, security of troop location, and others), this group of people (thousands of people) simply cannot have internet access at-will, all the time, and thus will not be able to utilize these new tools.
Good point. However with everything there are going to be execptions.
1. It’s ultimately portable. I can use it on any computer or computer-like device, wherever I am.
As we've seen in this thread, for a current user who has the Classic Character Builder installed this is debatable. If I already have a laptop I already have the best case of portability for me. I have to install Silverlight to use it on any system that I want to be "portable," which is essentially the same as downloading the character builder. I can't use the character builder on an iPad, which I believe would fall under the category of "any" above.
When this tool is released I will not be able to export characters nor will I be able to save more than 20.
And in exchange for this "portability" I will be losing a whole suite of functionality.
2. It’s both PC and Mac friendly. I can access it from either kind of machine.
Yes, at the exchange of a whole suite of functionality for me the current user. My friend who has a Macintosh will no longer have to boot into his Windows partition. But in exchange for that he's getting a character builder with significantly less functionality. That is not an unambiguous benefit for a current user.
3. There are multiple character sheet options. I can pick an Essentials character sheet or a sheet that takes advantage of the digital medium, and we can add other versions of sheets as demand warrants.
The Classic Character Builder lets you pick multiple options, including complete customization of the character sheet. The user could rearrange boxes, decide which boxes are important and which aren't or *gasp* print a sheet in the landscape format!
Having two sheet options with no customization vs. a completely customizable sheet is an unambiguous benefit for a current user, how?
4.The user interface is better. We’ve learned a lot, tested a lot, and made a tool that is easier to navigate and use.
Again this is a benefit that didn't require the switch to online. And in exchange for the switch we, the current users, are losing the functionality of the very basic house rules the Classic Character Builder has.
5. Content filters are better. The D&D game is loaded with content, and the new Character Builder offers lots of ways to filter that content for you. You can make choices up front to limit the amount of information you’re bombarded with, and you can add more elements later as your play style and game mastery demands.
(Repeat) Again this is a benefit that didn't require the switch to online. And in exchange for the switch we, the current users, are losing the functionality of the very basic house rules the Classic Character Builder has.
6. More agile. The new tools allow us to respond faster to customer needs. We can make updates and changes to the system more quickly, and the new content is pushed live almost instantaneously—content updates just happen, with no downloads required.
At first this sounds like a great benefit! But this has yet to be demonstrated. There are a number of bug fixes (20 character limit, no export, etc.) that have been brought up and mentioned as being at the top of the list. When asked if the new web tools meant that these fixes could get in quicker than once a month the developers replied "oh no, we're still only doing updates once a month.
If the new architecture allowed them to do these fixes on Day 1 then I'd be more optimistic about the benefits to me. But a day 30 fix is the same time it should be with the current offline technology.
7. Dark Sun and Essentials. The new tool includes options so that you can create characters using the Dark Sun Campaign Setting and Heroes of the Fallen Lands as well as with material from all products already loaded into the previous tool. And more content is on the way.
While, yes, my players will be happy to finally be able to make Dark Sun characters digitally after a quarter of a year of waiting I think it is disingenuous to imply that only an online technology could do so.
So again, what is the unambiguous benefit, for us the existing users to the Character Builder being exclusively online?
So again, what is the unambiguous benefit, for us the existing users to the Character Builder being exclusively online?
There's clearly none, but it was never the point of the change. Is the point of the complaints that good PR is about making the sour become sweet?
Very good point on soldiers. Again, an extreme case but a very relevant one.
I think if someone has his laptop with him, the only thing you can be certain of is; he has his laptop with him. You can't be certain he has internet access.
It sounds like you're saying that's not true, but you can't be saying that, so I don't know what you're saying.
All existing users just lost some functionality. That loss will only impact a certain percentage of those users.
What, then, is the benefit gained? We can no longer user the Builder where we don't have internet.
What is the unambiguous benefit, for us the existing users to the Character Builder being exclusively online?
No, what I'm saying is that I got a laptop, I take it with me fairly frequently and still I know that after the CB goes Web 2.0 I will have access to character creation infinitely more often then I did before.
And anyone can see that.
No. You can see that. As you said "I will have access to character creation infinitely more often then I did before." But that's not all of us. There's no internet at work where we play. There's no internet at the game store where we play. One of my players has restricted internet at work, i.e. can't get to the wizards site, so if he forgets something at home on the day of the game, oh well. In all of these cases, the old CB worked for us. In this brave new world, it doesn't. Especially on day one, and before you say that 'export is a high priority', we've been waiting for Dark Sun support for a while.. and now you say we have to wait longer?
Yeah. I can access it infinitely less often than I did before, even though I have my tablet with me all the time. See what I did there?
...and asking for an offline character builder is essentially like asking Blizzard to make WoW available offline. It limits them, and what limits them ultimately limits what they are able to deliver to us...
Ummm, no matter how salient your other points might be (I can see this as a sound business decision, and if they don't care about those that want an offline character builder, I can see making the decision based on on that), this comparison is apples to oranges. One is an online game, that was an online game when you subscribed to it. The other is a tool, and was an offline tool before being made unceremoniously into an online-only tool.
Not even the same, and it really undercuts your argument.
Can you please cite a single situation where it would have been sensible to expect being able to use the CB and that won't be possible anymore with the new tools?
Though you ask him... see above. And also since we play in a game shop, and it's episodic, and we have times where people drop in and we make a character on the spot, or we go out to dinner and plan characters (which we did before our Eberron campaign), having an offline CB that didn't require an internet connection helped in all of those cases.
So again, what is the unambiguous benefit, for us the existing users to the Character Builder being exclusively online?
There's clearly none, but it was never the point of the change. Is the point of the complaints that good PR is about making the sour become sweet?
I would maintain that if the points in the Ampersand post fall apart this easily then it is, in point of fact, not good PR.
the old cb wont help you anywhere there isnt power, so playing Dnd while camping i guess is out.
True, and also when the Soviet Union targets the United States with a surprise nuclear attack the ensuing EMP will ensure the survivors won't be able to use any of the character builders.
True, and also when the Soviet Union targets the United States with a surprise nuclear attack the ensuing EMP will ensure the survivors won't be able to use any of the character builders.
The Cold War is back on? One would have thought there would have been more news coverage of the Wall being rebuilt. 
True, and also when the Soviet Union targets the United States with a surprise nuclear attack the ensuing EMP will ensure the survivors won't be able to use any of the character builders.The Cold War is back on? One would have thought there would have been more news coverage of the Wall being rebuilt.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2FpDtqUQIo
True, and also when the Soviet Union targets the United States with a surprise nuclear attack the ensuing EMP will ensure the survivors won't be able to use any of the character builders.
I think the living would envy the dead!
www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/06/21/
This Penny Arcade comic is extremely applicable to this situation, so good spot.
Basically, Wizards has developed a product whose features benefit them:
- Combats piracy? Check!
- Gives them access to player data? Check!
- Allows them to deploy updates more quickly? Check!
- Grabs that all-important Mac user segment of the market? Check!
- Uses the word 'cloud' in its feature list? Check!
This is an impressive feature list - if you're a Hasbro exec. For users? Well, eh. Big deal.
Out of the box exsiting users get a product with much more limited functionality and accessibility then it used to have. The only things which might soften the blow are the potential for an improved user interface and faster development of new features and products. But these are points are both vague, to say the least. If the new online CB truly heralded a corncucopia of new tools it might be worth it, but I'l believe it when I see it.
In the meantime, I'll take functionality over user interface any day. The user interface is only as valuable as the actual software it interfaces with.
The question we should be asking is not "are there users on these forums who assume everyone with a computer always has internet?" I think we can presume that somewhere on the internet there's someone who believes anything you can think of.
Rather we should be asking WotC why the new character builder is better for us right now than the old one. We've been paying for DDI, the Character Builder being its Killer App, for months with no update, and now we're finding out we're losing functionality.
Seems like instead of paying for months with no update, only to lose functionality, we should maybe...get something for that money. That seems traditional. I pay you, I get something for my money.
Frankly I'm surprised more people aren't canceling just out of principle. They kept paying, for months, with no new CB updates, only to find out that when the next update finally comes, they're losing functionality. I can't imagine there are many companies that would get away with this.
I got an email from Netflix a while ago letting me know there was a problem with their web player for a few hours one day, apologizing for the disruption of service and giving me three free days of Netflix.
Now, the core Netflix service didn't go down, you could still mail your DVDs back and get the next DVDs in your queue, only their Instant service went down *and I didn't even notice*. And I got something as a result.
www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/06/21/
This Penny Arcade comic is extremely applicable to this situation, so good spot.
Basically, Wizards has developed a product whose features benefit them:
- Combats piracy? Check!
- Gives them access to player data? Check!
- Allows them to deploy updates more quickly? Check!
- Grabs that all-important Mac user segment of the market? Check!
- Uses the word 'cloud' in its feature list? Check!
This is an impressive feature list - if you're a Hasbro exec. For users? Well, eh. Big deal.
Out of the box exsiting users get a product with much more limited functionality and accessibility then it used to have. The only things which might soften the blow are the potential for an improved user interface and faster development of new features and products. But these are points are both vague, to say the least. If the new online CB truly heralded a corncucopia of new tools it might be worth it, but I'l believe it when I see it.
In the meantime, I'll take functionality over user interface any day. The user interface is only as valuable as the actual software it interfaces with.
Well, it's always been to benefit WoTC/Hasbro. They want your money.
They could have just as easy changed the stand alone app to go and check that you have an active account before allowing you to use it.
And I think cloud computing is the way forward, I really do.
And back in the 1950's people thought that by now we'd have cars than ran on "Atomic Power".
And I think cloud computing is the way forward, I really do.
And back in the 1950's people thought that by now we'd have cars than ran on "Atomic Power".
Funny, and gets the point across. I approve of this message
And I think cloud computing is the way forward, I really do.
And back in the 1950's people thought that by now we'd have cars than ran on "Atomic Power".
Funny, and gets the point across. I approve of this message
Yes but people also said tv was a fad that wouldn't last, and that computers would get bigger and more exspensive and only major corporations would be able to afford them.
the old cb wont help you anywhere there isnt power, so playing Dnd while camping i guess is out.
True, and also when the Soviet Union targets the United States with a surprise nuclear attack the ensuing EMP will ensure the survivors won't be able to use any of the character builders.
WOLVERINES!!!
It often comes up on Usenet discussions, in which someone comes into a newsgroup with a wacky idea, and when it's immediately and appropriately shot down in flames, they whine "...well, they laughed at Galileo, and Einstein." To which the correct response is, inevitably, "...yeah, they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
Quoting from elsewhereIt often comes up on Usenet discussions, in which someone comes into a newsgroup with a wacky idea, and when it's immediately and appropriately shot down in flames, they whine "...well, they laughed at Galileo, and Einstein." To which the correct response is, inevitably, "...yeah, they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
Not me. I never laughed at Bozo the Clown. His dramatical work is amazing.
Quoting from elsewhereIt often comes up on Usenet discussions, in which someone comes into a newsgroup with a wacky idea, and when it's immediately and appropriately shot down in flames, they whine "...well, they laughed at Galileo, and Einstein." To which the correct response is, inevitably, "...yeah, they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
Quite true. The mark of being correct is not being ridiculed. You can not make the assumption that a similar response to an idea means a similar quality of an idea.
Ridiculed scientists generally have a strong set of evidence that builds upon observations, assumptions and or past knowledge. Those who fail to critique the evidence, but choose to ridicule the idea, frequently end up looking like the fool in the end.
All too often crack pot ideas come from the same place, follow the same thread and are based on the same (if any) shaky evidence. Repetition and volume do not make something more correct. If the idea has already been found wanting, then stronger support is required.
Silverlight is being abandoned by Microsoft.... in favor of HTML5...
why develop a silverlight website when silverlight is abandoned by the developers?
“Silverlight is still a cross-platform solutions, will continue in a variety of operating systems and browsers continue to work to develop.” Muglia said: “But HTML5 will be the future of cross-platform solutions that only truth, including Apple The iOS platform. ”
www.hotxp.com.ru/microsoft-silverlight-s...
(Given they have a lot of dot-net code, I can't argue with that approach. It won't work on anything except PCs, Macs, and maybe Windows 7 phones (but prob. not those). But it's a valid approach right now.
And hopefully, if they can isolate the harder bits to code, they may some day be able to move from here to HTML5. It will certainly be easier than moving from the stand alone builder straight to HTML5.)
the old cb wont help you anywhere there isnt power, so playing Dnd while camping i guess is out.
We play while camping, and we have power but no Internet access. And we do use CB while camping to play around with ideas. Oh well, I guess now we'll have to do something old fashioned like read on our iphones or watch movies on same. ;)
Well, it's always been to benefit WoTC/Hasbro. They want your money.
They could have just as easy changed the stand alone app to go and check that you have an active account before allowing you to use it.
Software developers always want our money... but they first think in an attractive product and then try to sell you. Pissing a lot of customers like Wizards has been doing isn't something other companies use to.
Well, it's always been to benefit WoTC/Hasbro. They want your money.
They could have just as easy changed the stand alone app to go and check that you have an active account before allowing you to use it.
Software developers always want our money... but they first think in an attractive product and then try to sell you. Pissing a lot of customers like Wizards has been doing isn't something other companies use to.
Well, they clearly have a product we want. Otherwise, people would be yawning over this.
It's kind of like drugs. The first taste is free, isn't it? Then you are hooked.
the old cb wont help you anywhere there isnt power, so playing Dnd while camping i guess is out.
We play while camping, and we have power but no Internet access. And we do use CB while camping to play around with ideas. Oh well, I guess now we'll have to do something old fashioned like read on our iphones or watch movies on same. ;)
Sometimes we play on a pool club. No wireless, no power. We open CB on notebooks to consult, then close to economize battery
Well, they clearly have a product we want. Otherwise, people would be yawning over this.
Most people clearly DO NOT WANT an online CB.
Most software companies wouldn't do that mistake.
Heck, even allmight Blizzard had to make a step back from their "brilliant" idea of Real ID on forums.
Wizards seem to run in the opposite way all the time.
I skimmed this posts.. did see anyone mention this...
Silverlight is being abandoned by Microsoft.... in favor of HTML5...
why develop a silverlight website when silverlight is abandoned by the developers?
“Silverlight is still a cross-platform solutions, will continue in a variety of operating systems and browsers continue to work to develop.” Muglia said: “But HTML5 will be the future of cross-platform solutions that only truth, including Apple The iOS platform. ”
www.hotxp.com.ru/microsoft-silverlight-s...
Silverlight isn't being abandoned, at least not in the near future. While it is true that Microsoft has stated that they are shifting cross-platform focus to HTML5, it is also not true that they have stated that they are abandoning Silverlight. While this may be true at some point in the future, this hasn't become as clear as is being posited, and to say that based on this statement is the same as basing anything on what Microsoft says when a technology comes to the fore.
@Matthew: You know that cutting the cost to WotC means more money for development... right? Maybe hiring a few more programmers, or people to add content to the database.
Nono, I don't dispute that this change creates some advantage for WotC. Let's all take that as a given, I don't even think it matters what that is.
All I'm asking is; What is the unambiguous benefit, for us the existing users to the Character Builder being exclusively online?
How are more developers to make more tools and add more content faster for we the people not an unambiguous benefit? None the less, see my previous post.
That's not how corporations work. All that money goes back up the ladder and maybe, just maybe next quarter some of it will filter down and allow them to hire more people...
And I think cloud computing is the way forward, I really do.
And back in the 1950's people thought that by now we'd have cars than ran on "Atomic Power".
Funny, and gets the point across. I approve of this message
Yes but people also said tv was a fad that wouldn't last, and that computers would get bigger and more exspensive and only major corporations would be able to afford them.
So... you can say it in both ways. I don't think that cloud computing is fad. But to say that people will abandon having local control over their data to leaving it all in someone else's hands is to underestimate how much people don't trust others to handle all of their data.
Well, they clearly have a product we want. Otherwise, people would be yawning over this.
Most people clearly DO NOT WANT an online CB.
Most software companies wouldn't do that mistake.
Heck, even allmight Blizzard had to make a step back from their "brilliant" idea of Real ID on forums.
Wizards seem to run in the opposite way all the time.
The question of Most people is still out for me. I've seen plenty of this is a good move posts. And plenty of I don't care if it's online or not, but my concerns are... posts along with, we hate this.
Wizards is moving in a direction most other companies are going to follow. I work in publishing. They are kicking themselves for failing to take this seriously 5 years ago.
Now they are all scrambling to catch up.
And I think cloud computing is the way forward, I really do.
And back in the 1950's people thought that by now we'd have cars than ran on "Atomic Power".
Funny, and gets the point across. I approve of this message
Yes but people also said tv was a fad that wouldn't last, and that computers would get bigger and more exspensive and only major corporations would be able to afford them.
So... you can say it in both ways. I don't think that cloud computing is fad. But to say that people will abandon having local control over their data to leaving it all in someone else's hands is to underestimate how much people don't trust others to handle all of their data.
You maybe right about people and their view of having their data out of their hands. Probably very right. But guess what, in time they won't care.
Facebook is a perfect example.
With all the ranting and raving of the board this week I dont see how lack of internet connection is a problem for players.
I rant and rave using my crappy Samsung Strive II cell that could not possibly run the new CB
The question of Most people is still out for me. I've seen plenty of this is a good move posts. And plenty of I don't care if it's online or not, but my concerns are... posts along with, we hate this.
Wizards is moving in a direction most other companies are going to follow. I work in publishing. They are kicking themselves for failing to take this seriously 5 years ago.
Now they are all scrambling to catch up.
It's a good move for Wizards. No doubt about it.
For players? I seriously doubt it. Moving online is annoying to me. We use CB to quick consult powers, items and shopping prices at table and our preferred gaming places have no internet.
Now, there are Wizards fand that will defend every step they do, no matter what and if people try to express their concerns it's just QQ for them.
Good for Wotc, bad for me.
And all the advantages would be gone when Wizard kills it in a few years, which is about or less then *half* as long as I've used GMail by then. Are they still long term advantages in light of this?
By the way, "soon" may not be the best choice of word around here at this moment.
When you talk about Wizard killing this in a few years I think that is unlikely. Why? Sure we'll go to 5th Edition about that time but think of this: 5E will be almost entirely online or at least will be hugely supported with online stuff. So if they kill off 4E support when 5E comes out and they shaft loads of people who are playing and wanting to continue playing 4E then that will be a good reason for people not to go to 5E, because they'lll see they'll get shafted when 6E comes out. It's important that Wizards support 4E DDi after the life of 4E for that reason.
And the choice of "soon" was a deliberate one.
Apparently your not aware of their sell of previous version books as PDFs which cost them nearly nothing and made them a decent amount of money. As soon as 4E came out they no longer "supported the previous versions" and stopped selling those PDFs, this was before the decision to not sell 4E PDFs came about, not to mention their dropping of support for the 3.0/3.5 character builder...
And I think cloud computing is the way forward, I really do.
And back in the 1950's people thought that by now we'd have cars than ran on "Atomic Power".
Funny, and gets the point across. I approve of this message
Yes but people also said tv was a fad that wouldn't last, and that computers would get bigger and more exspensive and only major corporations would be able to afford them.
So... you can say it in both ways. I don't think that cloud computing is fad. But to say that people will abandon having local control over their data to leaving it all in someone else's hands is to underestimate how much people don't trust others to handle all of their data.
You maybe right about people and their view of having their data out of their hands. Probably very right. But guess what, in time they won't care.
Facebook is a perfect example.
Facebook really isn't a perfect example. And whether or not people will continue to care still remains to be seen. Especially when corporations are included in 'people'. Most large corporations are very controlling, with good reason, in regards to their data. And I don't see that changing anytime soon. Many won't even let their employees tele-work because of their obsession with control. And you're going to tell them that their data will be in the cloud? On servers that aren't in their control?
Good luck with that.
The question of Most people is still out for me. I've seen plenty of this is a good move posts. And plenty of I don't care if it's online or not, but my concerns are... posts along with, we hate this.
Wizards is moving in a direction most other companies are going to follow. I work in publishing. They are kicking themselves for failing to take this seriously 5 years ago.
Now they are all scrambling to catch up.
It's a good move for Wizards. No doubt about it.
For players? I seriously doubt it. Moving online is annoying to me. We use CB to quick consult powers, items and shopping prices at table and our preferred gaming places have no internet.
Now, there are Wizards fand that will defend every step they do, no matter what and if people try to express their concerns it's just QQ for them.
Good for Wotc, bad for me.
I love how the whole fan boy gets brought every time a person doens't agree with someone who is angry or upset. I don't think the way they delivered the information was done well.
Most complaints seem to be coming from a fear of change attitude, and then reasons are given for it. Any given situation, it's possible to find an expection. Soldiers over seas with spotty internet conncetions, sure.
But for the most part, they are thinking of people sitting around playing a game, and needing to access it. And most people have internet connection, most people have a computer. If one person in the group has it, everyone with an account can access their accounts.
In other words, they are thinking about in terms of how most people will use it. Sure it's great that some people sit around creating hundreds of characters for fun. But that's not really the average customer.
They are also thinking of Mac users. Sorry Linux users got hosed, but one thing at a time.
And I think cloud computing is the way forward, I really do.
And back in the 1950's people thought that by now we'd have cars than ran on "Atomic Power".
Funny, and gets the point across. I approve of this message
Yes but people also said tv was a fad that wouldn't last, and that computers would get bigger and more exspensive and only major corporations would be able to afford them.
So... you can say it in both ways. I don't think that cloud computing is fad. But to say that people will abandon having local control over their data to leaving it all in someone else's hands is to underestimate how much people don't trust others to handle all of their data.
You maybe right about people and their view of having their data out of their hands. Probably very right. But guess what, in time they won't care.
Facebook is a perfect example.
Facebook really isn't a perfect example. And whether or not people will continue to care still remains to be seen. Especially when corporations are included in 'people'. Most large corporations are very controlling, with good reason, in regards to their data. And I don't see that changing anytime soon. Many won't even let their employees tele-work because of their obsession with control. And you're going to tell them that their data will be in the cloud? On servers that aren't in their control?
Good luck with that.
People scream about the sharing of info on facebook, and threaten to quit all the time, and yet their numbers keep growing. Cleary having someone steal your cat pictures isn't as important as people made it out to be.
Uh, there is a huge push for work at home days at corporations. Every corporation I've worked for, has the option to telecomute, and all my friends who still work for various corporations have telecommute days. Companies have seen an increase with productivity with telecommuting because people can focus on work without distractions.
And they log on to the companies servers, with a secure safe connection, and the company still has control of their data.
I work 3 days a week as a freelance production artist for a publishing company, and I've already got access to everything from home, and I'm only going to be working there till Feb/March.
You're not looking at it with a business perspective.
Hey, you're right, I'm not - I'm looking at it from a customer's perspective! How weird is that?
A browser based application is infinitely more portable than an hefty download with limited monthly updates that, IIRC, doesn't even work on Mac.
There's no possible comparison.
Well, I haven't actually weighed my laptop with and without the CB, but I'm pretty sure it's not what I would call "hefty".
And my offline CB I can use on the train, on a flight, in a hotel (whether it offers net access or not), at the local roleplaying club, at the home of my friend who doesn't have net access... You're right - there is no comparison.
People scream about the sharing of info on facebook, and threaten to quit all the time, and yet their numbers keep growing.
Record executives also brag about the sales numbers of Sammy Hagar-era/post-David Lee Roth-era Van HAlen albums, but that doesn't mean they were good albums, just that a lot of Van Halen fans had really bad taste.
People scream about the sharing of info on facebook, and threaten to quit all the time, and yet their numbers keep growing.
Record executives also brag about the sales numbers of Sammy Hagar-era/post-David Lee Roth-era Van HAlen albums, but that doesn't mean they were good albums, just that a lot of Van Halen fans had really bad taste.
Taste is subjective. The bottom line is that the execs were right in what to offer.
People scream about the sharing of info on facebook, and threaten to quit all the time, and yet their numbers keep growing.
Record executives also brag about the sales numbers of Sammy Hagar-era/post-David Lee Roth-era Van HAlen albums, but that doesn't mean they were good albums, just that a lot of Van Halen fans had really bad taste.
Taste is subjective. The bottom line is that the execs were right in what to offer.
Not if it doesn't suit the customer's needs or tastes. Then all it is is useless code sitting there. Therefore, it is in fact NOT right in what to offer, as there is no incentive for the customer to use that product and/or service.
It's like a dentist offering someone a toothbrush, right after they've pulled all the patients teeth.
How is the online version more portable?
For me, here is how I currently make the offline version of CB portable. I unplug my monitor, my keyboard, mouse, computer tower and assorted cables. I then pack them up in my car and travel to wherever. Once I arrive at my destination, I hopefully have a power outlet nearby (read not at my FLGS for instance). I then reconnect my monitor, keyboard, tower, etc.
With an online version, I simply find a computer that's connected to the internet and fire it up.
You see, the thing is, I don't own a laptop. Or a netbook. Or an iPad, etc. So for me, personally, I gain lots of funtionality and portability with the online version. I can, in theory, use the CB at work (I'm not allowed to install programs or run executables on company machines). I'm also far from unique in this respect. A number of my gaming friends do not have laptops either.
Everybody is different
This is the main problem with the "it's inherently less portable" argument. This faction is assuming that everyone owns a portable computer when this simply isn't true. Ironically, they make this very same point when they argue "not every computer has access to the internet at all locations". The argument is correct in both instances because, shockingly enough, not everyone is in the same situation as everyone else.
So is the online only version more portable?
Yes.
Is the online only version less portable?
Yes.
It just depends on your situation. In other words, people need to relax, take a deep breath, and release the vitriol that has built up for the other side of the argument. In many respects, both sides are correct.
People scream about the sharing of info on facebook, and threaten to quit all the time, and yet their numbers keep growing.
Record executives also brag about the sales numbers of Sammy Hagar-era/post-David Lee Roth-era Van HAlen albums, but that doesn't mean they were good albums, just that a lot of Van Halen fans had really bad taste.
Taste is subjective. The bottom line is that the execs were right in what to offer.
Not if it doesn't suit the customer's needs or tastes. Then all it is is useless code sitting there. Therefore, it is in fact NOT right in what to offer, as there is no incentive for the customer to use that product and/or service.
To bad you or I don't have any facts or figures to back up our views, huh? But I suspect WoTC does, and that's part of the change. Certainly MAC users are happy over this. A fast growing population of computer users.
With more mobile devices coming out, like the iPad, I'm sure they are going to adapt for that.
But my gut feeling, most people will just adapt and move on. Even many of the, I'm leaving and never coming back will come back.
Because that's people for you.
People scream about the sharing of info on facebook, and threaten to quit all the time, and yet their numbers keep growing. Cleary having someone steal your cat pictures isn't as important as people made it out to be.
There's a big difference between a social networking site that is made for you to share information with others, and a tool that you utilize to get things done. If you can't see that, then there's no real use in continuing this.
Uh, there is a huge push for work at home days at corporations. Every corporation I've worked for, has the option to telecomute, and all my friends who still work for various corporations have telecommute days. Companies have seen an increase with productivity with telecommuting because people can focus on work without distractions.
And they log on to the companies servers, with a secure safe connection, and the company still has control of their data.
I work 3 days a week as a freelance production artist for a publishing company, and I've already got access to everything from home, and I'm only going to be working there till Feb/March.
That's the companies you work for. Which is what percentage of companies? In what fields?
I just recently went full time. Before that I was a contractor. I literally worked for 25+ companies in the past 5 years. And how many of them would even consider that for a contractor, let alone a full-time employee? 1. And that was a mere one day a week, after you'd been working there for 6 months. And I'm not talking about small firms, or even non-tech firms. I'm talking a large cross-section of companies in a large cross section of industries: retirement management (government and private), financial (securities, banking, credit, etc), multimedia, health-care, insurance, telecommunication, and more. The one that was willing to was an up and coming company that was a bit out of start up. For the others, they wanted you where they could see you, where they could 'manage' you. And they wanted their software in house, in data centers, where their own NOCs could manage them. I will concede that in certain industries, the idea of tele-workers is more palatable than others. But as a whole, it's still not happening. In fact, less than 5% of the workforce worked from home on a regular basis, at least as of last year. And yes, there are statistics to back that up.
Again, I'm not saying that eventually the idea of localized data might not become a thing of the past. But that time is a long time in coming.
On another note as to the portability, I suppose it depends on your definition of portable. I consider applications as portable as my tablet allows it to be. If I don't have wi-fi, I can't use an online application. So it's less portable to me. If you define portability as the ability to run it in a multitude of different places, it is. So it's all in perspective.
the old cb wont help you anywhere there isnt power, so playing Dnd while camping i guess is out.
We play while camping, and we have power but no Internet access. And we do use CB while camping to play around with ideas. Oh well, I guess now we'll have to do something old fashioned like read on our iphones or watch movies on same. ;)
Case in point. I can't take the opposing arguments seriously because of all the "Well, no CB anymore means D&D is dead, the game can't be played anymore while camping, I'll move to something else". I guess the Bozo the Clown reference is entirely fitting here.
On the "benefits WotC, not users" argument, it's sound but partial.
If the consequences of keeping the old format were that CB wasn't profitable and WotC would discontinue it, then the customer benefit is there.
In all honesty, I have a theory. It's a cospiracy theory. The delay on the DS and Essential update is completely intentional on WotC's part. They probably have been examinating the trend of people getting a one month subscription in order to avoid having to buy books with hefty amounts of crunch but also stuff they don't want.
DS introduced themes.
Essentials introduce a wagonload of classes and feats a lot of people are wary about but still interested into.
Imagine being a user not wanting DS as a setting but still wanting themes for you FR game. You buy the book? DDI is cheaper. And so on for (especially) Essentials.
I wouldn't be surprised if they found out that no DDI update gave book sales more legs. And if they did, they proved the DDI scheme was hurting them.
Is the new DDI a "worse" deal? Quite likely, but that's the whole point because the old one was a completely unfair deal for WotC. So every user who's posting "where's my benefit as a customer?" should take a second to ask himself if the previous service had a benefit for WotC and if it's better to have a new service that sacrifices some customer comfort in order to be sustainable or if it's better to have no service at all.
the old cb wont help you anywhere there isnt power, so playing Dnd while camping i guess is out.
We play while camping, and we have power but no Internet access. And we do use CB while camping to play around with ideas. Oh well, I guess now we'll have to do something old fashioned like read on our iphones or watch movies on same. ;)
Case in point. I can't take the opposing arguments seriously because of all the "Well, no CB anymore means D&D is dead, the game can't be played anymore while camping, I'll move to something else". I guess the Bozo the Clown reference is entirely fitting here.
On the "benefits WotC, not users" argument, it's sound but partial.
If the consequences of keeping the old format were that CB wasn't profitable and WotC would discontinue it, then the customer benefit is there.
In all honesty, I have a theory. It's a cospiracy theory. The delay on the DS and Essential update is completely intentional on WotC's part. They probably have been examinating the trend of people getting a one month subscription in order to avoid having to buy books with hefty amounts of crunch but also stuff they don't want.
DS introduced themes.
Essentials introduce a wagonload of classes and feats a lot of people are wary about but still interested into.
Imagine being a user not wanting DS as a setting but still wanting themes for you FR game. You buy the book? DDI is cheaper. And so on for (especially) Essentials.
I wouldn't be surprised if they found out that no DDI update gave book sales more legs. And if they did, they proved the DDI scheme was hurting them.
Is the new DDI a "worse" deal? Quite likely, but that's the whole point because the old one was a completely unfair deal for WotC. So every user who's posting "where's my benefit as a customer?" should take a second to ask himself if the previous service had a benefit for WotC and if it's better to have a new service that sacrifices some customer comfort in order to be sustainable or if it's better to have no service at all.
Seriously, dude. Stop posting. You're fanning the flames. Just because you fail to understand someone else's viewpoint does not mean you need to constantly spam everyone with the same rhetoric over and over and over. Please, for the love of all that's holy, stop!
Seriously, dude. Stop posting. You're fanning the flames. Just because you fail to understand someone else's viewpoint does not mean you need to constantly spam everyone with the same rhetoric over and over and over. Please, for the love of all that's holy, stop!
I beg your pardon, but you can't accuse me of failing to understand someone's viewpoint and then tell me I'm "spamming rhetoric" and then ask me to stop posting. Insulting someone is a good way to "fan the flames", if you want to abide to your own teachings.
There's no misunderstanding on my part: I'm simply pointing out that this post perfectly exemplifies the hypocrisy of the complaint. If what the poster is saying is true (DDI going offline makes D&D unplayable/not worth playing), then all PnP RPGs are unplayable and we've been doing it wrong for 30 years. And the thread is full of people claiming exactly this.
Address this point, and I'll stop bringing it up.
The second thing I'm claiming is that when bringing up that the new service doesn't sound as attractive as the old one (something I am convinced of too, and I've said it before), you can't blindly assume that since you've been given a service in the past you're entitled to that service forever, expecially if doing so would mean diminishing the chances of seeing the service exist at all.
Adress this point, and I'll stop bringing it up.
To clarify, I would feel a lesser urge to oppose this kind of complaint if this board wasn't so chocking full of people launching themselves in constant hyperbolic complaints that often cover the full range of saying that the DDI deal suck and the DDI content is horrible and the DDI price is too high but not being able to use the DDI tools in the woods makes the game not worth playing.
People scream about the sharing of info on facebook, and threaten to quit all the time, and yet their numbers keep growing. Cleary having someone steal your cat pictures isn't as important as people made it out to be.
There's a big difference between a social networking site that is made for you to share information with others, and a tool that you utilize to get things done. If you can't see that, then there's no real use in continuing this.
It's not about if it's a social network or an online tool. It's about people complaining about controling thier information. The fact is, people will get over that issue pretty quick. The same points and arguements people are making about their game information being kept on a server rather then their computer are the same kinds of arguements they made about facebooks policies.
Such as, I don't want them using my data! I don't want them stealing my ideas! They got over it and no harm done to facebook, it got bigger then ever.
Uh, there is a huge push for work at home days at corporations. Every corporation I've worked for, has the option to telecomute, and all my friends who still work for various corporations have telecommute days. Companies have seen an increase with productivity with telecommuting because people can focus on work without distractions.
And they log on to the companies servers, with a secure safe connection, and the company still has control of their data.
I work 3 days a week as a freelance production artist for a publishing company, and I've already got access to everything from home, and I'm only going to be working there till Feb/March.
That's the companies you work for. Which is what percentage of companies? In what fields?
I just recently went full time. Before that I was a contractor. I literally worked for 25+ companies in the past 5 years. And how many of them would even consider that for a contractor, let alone a full-time employee? 1. And that was a mere one day a week, after you'd been working there for 6 months. And I'm not talking about small firms, or even non-tech firms. I'm talking a large cross-section of companies in a large cross section of industries: retirement management (government and private), financial (securities, banking, credit, etc), multimedia, health-care, insurance, telecommunication, and more. The one that was willing to was an up and coming company that was a bit out of start up. For the others, they wanted you where they could see you, where they could 'manage' you. And they wanted their software in house, in data centers, where their own NOCs could manage them. I will concede that in certain industries, the idea of tele-workers is more palatable than others. But as a whole, it's still not happening. In fact, less than 5% of the workforce worked from home on a regular basis, at least as of last year. And yes, there are statistics to back that up.
Yes, not all jobs can be telecommuted. If you are a nurse, or a cashier, or school teacher. There are more jobs that can't be done at home.
The point someone was making is that companies don't want people working at home, because they want to control their data. That's simply not true. Companies are finding employess that work at home at least one day a week can be more productive, because they aren't being distracted by whats going on in the office.
I made no claim that more people are working from home then there aren't. I refuted the claim that companies don't like it because they wanted to control their data. Companies do like it.
And a quick search for info on telecommuting found only articles saying it's on the rise.
VisanidethDM wrote
If I'm just limited to the time at home, the campaign just isn't going to happen with an rpg such as 4e. That's what I would mean by unplayable.
However, I can easily dig out a couple of rpgs which only have a 3-4 rulebooks and work and prepare those.
It's UNDENIABLE that still having the CB working offline would be better. I'd be hard pressed to find someone thinking otherwise.
But as far as being as gamebreaking as you say...
Ironically, I think the most useful tools to prepare games (that I use too) are the encounter builder and the compedium, and they're both web based. I understand the monster builder being extremely useful too, but while prepping an encounter you've been thinking about it's the perfect "coffee break" activity, monster building is fairly timeconsuming. And I don't really understand DMs relying so much on the CB... it's pointless for NPC or campaign building. Unless you're taxed with upkeeping all your party's characters.
Now, on the point of the website being blocked at a workplace... that sucks, ok, but are we supposed to "play" D&D at work? I spend some time doing that at my workplace but it's literally my company, and I wouldn't be as indulgent if I found out that people I pay thousands of euros every month spend 25 minutes on D&D tools.
Once again, the tools being usable at work are hardly something WotC should market their products around.
I understand the utility loss you're gonna face. For example, I know that I've been using the Monster Builder quite a lot on my laptop while traveling or waiting during travels. From November on, that will be time taken from my monthly data plan. It sucks? It sucks. It matters in the balance of things? I deeply disagree. This change has very minor effects, aside from the obvious economical ones.
That would seriously rock my socks.
If I'm just limited to the time at home, the campaign just isn't going to happen with an rpg such as 4e. That's what I would mean by unplayable.
However, I can easily dig out a couple of rpgs which only have a 3-4 rulebooks and work and prepare those.
It's UNDENIABLE that still having the CB working offline would be better. I'd be hard pressed to find someone thinking otherwise.
But as far as being as gamebreaking as you say...
Ironically, I think the most useful tools to prepare games (that I use too) are the encounter builder and the compedium, and they're both web based. I understand the monster builder being extremely useful too, but while prepping an encounter you've been thinking about it's the perfect "coffee break" activity, monster building is fairly timeconsuming. And I don't really understand DMs relying so much on the CB... it's pointless for NPC or campaign building. Unless you're taxed with upkeeping all your party's characters.
Now, on the point of the website being blocked at a workplace... that sucks, ok, but are we supposed to "play" D&D at work? I spend some time doing that at my workplace but it's literally my company, and I wouldn't be as indulgent if I found out that people I pay thousands of euros every month spend 25 minutes on D&D tools.
Once again, the tools being usable at work are hardly something WotC should market their products around.
I understand the utility loss you're gonna face. For example, I know that I've been using the Monster Builder quite a lot on my laptop while traveling or waiting during travels. From November on, that will be time taken from my monthly data plan. It sucks? It sucks. It matters in the balance of things? I deeply disagree. This change has very minor effects, aside from the obvious economical ones.
Thank you for understanding the utility loss. For me the difference is significant. It's enough to tip the Dming balance from tenable to untenable and yes that sucks.
workplace was only an example - but you missed the point - I didn't use the workplace computer before, I used my laptop outside in my lunch break and there's no wi-fi hotspot where I am.
Thank you for understanding the utility loss. For me the difference is significant. It's enough to tip the Dming balance from tenable to untenable and yes that sucks.
OK, but you do still have a "tenable" choice - the same one I am taking. Just freeze your game where the old CB is now and play that. I feel frustrated that this is the last point where I will have that option, but at least it's an option I can take now.
Who knows, if WotC manage to convince me that they can assure continuity for my game after they decide to switch to 5E/yet another digital model/a haitus for D&D to wait for it to come back into fashion I might sign up to the WotC train again. I actually like a lot of the stuff they are doing with Essentials. But there is also enough dubious stuff to make me leery of committing to a character builder that has no "drop out" option except losing the functionality entirely, and that is subject to removal at WotC's whim.
I'm not mad. I don't "hate" WotC. I'm just disappointed and frustrated with what I perceive as a poor decision (both for me as a customer and business-wise). And I'll just decline what I see as a fatally flawed service that is now offered instead of ongoing support for a product I like. No histrionics, just a purchase decision taken with some sadness.
With those to consider, the CB probably needs to be online.
But online or on my computer doesn't really matter to me. So long as it works, works very well, they up the number of characters you can have, and get it quickly back to the level of functionality it currently has.
That's all I care about. I'm probably like more customers that use it for what it's main purpose, making and leveling characters. I'm not one to sit down and make up characters, or whatever others do with it. So, for that, online, offline, implanted in my head, whatever, as long as it works.
the old cb wont help you anywhere there isnt power, so playing Dnd while camping i guess is out.
We play while camping, and we have power but no Internet access. And we do use CB while camping to play around with ideas. Oh well, I guess now we'll have to do something old fashioned like read on our iphones or watch movies on same. ;)
Case in point. I can't take the opposing arguments seriously because of all the "Well, no CB anymore means D&D is dead, the game can't be played anymore while camping, I'll move to something else". I guess the Bozo the Clown reference is entirely fitting here.
On the "benefits WotC, not users" argument, it's sound but partial.
If the consequences of keeping the old format were that CB wasn't profitable and WotC would discontinue it, then the customer benefit is there.
In all honesty, I have a theory. It's a cospiracy theory. The delay on the DS and Essential update is completely intentional on WotC's part. They probably have been examinating the trend of people getting a one month subscription in order to avoid having to buy books with hefty amounts of crunch but also stuff they don't want.
DS introduced themes.
Essentials introduce a wagonload of classes and feats a lot of people are wary about but still interested into.
Imagine being a user not wanting DS as a setting but still wanting themes for you FR game. You buy the book? DDI is cheaper. And so on for (especially) Essentials.
I wouldn't be surprised if they found out that no DDI update gave book sales more legs. And if they did, they proved the DDI scheme was hurting them.
Is the new DDI a "worse" deal? Quite likely, but that's the whole point because the old one was a completely unfair deal for WotC. So every user who's posting "where's my benefit as a customer?" should take a second to ask himself if the previous service had a benefit for WotC and if it's better to have a new service that sacrifices some customer comfort in order to be sustainable or if it's better to have no service at all.
+1 Sir. This isn't exactly what I was thinking, but addresses most of the main points. I'm extremely pleased that it answers that droned ongoing question "What benefit do I get from the online only CB?" poster. You get to keep getting an updated CB vs. not having one at all.
I completely agree with you that DDI (and specifically the CB) has been depressing book sales. I know it has with me. Re-up every few months and you never need to buy a players book (PHB2, PHB3, DP, MP, AP, etc). This model was more than likely unsustainable for WotC. I also agree with the conspiracy theory in that the giant swath of new content was specifically NOT put into the old CB to prevent more depressed book sales.
This whole debate reminds me of the of the software open source/proprietary non-sense, but I'll not delve into that.
On it's own, yes, having the CB offline probablly is better. However, the CB, if things go well, will be intergrated into other tools. Such as an item creature, or a campaign manager, and should we even dare to hope, the VTT and Character visualizer.
With those to consider, the CB probably needs to be online.
I really don't see why. I have character builders and campaign managers for other systems that sit on my PC - they work fine. Sure, updating takes time, but once per month that is really not that big a deal. The VTT I have sits on my PC, too - and doesn't need a server setup to work. Ditto with the map creator I already have. The only reason I can see WotC wanting to keep all this stuff online is to control it themselves - I see that as a serious disincentive for me to buy.
But online or on my computer doesn't really matter to me. So long as it works, works very well, they up the number of characters you can have, and get it quickly back to the level of functionality it currently has.
Yep, that would suit me, too - IF I was persuaded that it would continue to work as long as I wanted it to, not as long as WotC wanted it to. If the bits of Essentials I see as detrimental grow until I no longer want to follow on with WotC's chosen path, or if 5E comes along and I want to finish the 4E game I have ongoing, I want an out. I want confidence that we won't have a mess to clear up before we can carry on. Other methods of operating - the way we operate now, for instance - give me that, so I choose not to switch to one that doesn't.
That's all I care about. I'm probably like more customers that use it for what it's main purpose, making and leveling characters. I'm not one to sit down and make up characters, or whatever others do with it. So, for that, online, offline, implanted in my head, whatever, as long as it works.
Agreed - as long as it works and continues to work. The new model gives me no assurance of that at all - especially given past experience with Wizards.
People scream about the sharing of info on facebook, and threaten to quit all the time, and yet their numbers keep growing. Cleary having someone steal your cat pictures isn't as important as people made it out to be.
There's a big difference between a social networking site that is made for you to share information with others, and a tool that you utilize to get things done. If you can't see that, then there's no real use in continuing this.
It's not about if it's a social network or an online tool. It's about people complaining about controling thier information. The fact is, people will get over that issue pretty quick. The same points and arguements people are making about their game information being kept on a server rather then their computer are the same kinds of arguements they made about facebooks policies.
Such as, I don't want them using my data! I don't want them stealing my ideas! They got over it and no harm done to facebook, it got bigger then ever.
Again, that's different. There's a difference between a company having data on their servers that you have also, and companies having data on their servers that you don't have anywhere else. There's a difference between companies having data on their servers that you can access any time that you want to because it's duplicated on your computers, and companies having data on their computers that you can't access if you don't have access to the internet because you don't have it. There's a difference between something that you use to communicate and something that you use to be productive that you also use on the road. The world of technology is becoming more interconnected, and more mobile. That mobility takes you to places that you don't have access to the cloud. You can see it in most applications that have any inkling of this fact. Google documents is a cloud based application, but it also gives you the option to use your documents offline. Dropbox is a cloud based application that syncs your data, and allows you to access it in the cloud. But it gives you the option to mark data as a necessity, keeping it where you can access it when you need it. The cloud is not always there. And until it is, you need to have access when you want/need access, not when they say that you can have access. And to have it only accessible when you are connected is them telling you when you can have access.
Uh, there is a huge push for work at home days at corporations. Every corporation I've worked for, has the option to telecomute, and all my friends who still work for various corporations have telecommute days. Companies have seen an increase with productivity with telecommuting because people can focus on work without distractions.
And they log on to the companies servers, with a secure safe connection, and the company still has control of their data.
I work 3 days a week as a freelance production artist for a publishing company, and I've already got access to everything from home, and I'm only going to be working there till Feb/March.
That's the companies you work for. Which is what percentage of companies? In what fields?
I just recently went full time. Before that I was a contractor. I literally worked for 25+ companies in the past 5 years. And how many of them would even consider that for a contractor, let alone a full-time employee? 1. And that was a mere one day a week, after you'd been working there for 6 months. And I'm not talking about small firms, or even non-tech firms. I'm talking a large cross-section of companies in a large cross section of industries: retirement management (government and private), financial (securities, banking, credit, etc), multimedia, health-care, insurance, telecommunication, and more. The one that was willing to was an up and coming company that was a bit out of start up. For the others, they wanted you where they could see you, where they could 'manage' you. And they wanted their software in house, in data centers, where their own NOCs could manage them. I will concede that in certain industries, the idea of tele-workers is more palatable than others. But as a whole, it's still not happening. In fact, less than 5% of the workforce worked from home on a regular basis, at least as of last year. And yes, there are statistics to back that up.
Yes, not all jobs can be telecommuted. If you are a nurse, or a cashier, or school teacher. There are more jobs that can't be done at home.
The point someone was making is that companies don't want people working at home, because they want to control their data. That's simply not true. Companies are finding employess that work at home at least one day a week can be more productive, because they aren't being distracted by whats going on in the office.
I made no claim that more people are working from home then there aren't. I refuted the claim that companies don't like it because they wanted to control their data. Companies do like it.
And a quick search for info on telecommuting found only articles saying it's on the rise.
It is because of data. Over 42% of jobs have functions that are able to be performed offsite. However, a lot less than that have any access at all to their functions when offsite. While it is true that telecommuting is on the rise, something that I never disputed, there is a very real concern over control of data. If you don't get this, then you don't understand data or the nature of most large businesses. Security is a *real* concern. That's why so much goes into security policies, so much goes into trademark and IP, and why no matter what the state of the economy, security will always be a booming sector. Even this move by Wizards is a matter of control of their data, and when and how you access it.
Both of these points have been argued into the ground. We will have to agree to disagree on the salient points. As I said, I never said that all of your points were invalid, nor that sometime in the future, they might not even all become valid. However, at this point in time, and for the foreseeable future with the state of technology and corporate culture, there is no roadmap towards 'the cloud being the future' for all applications and computing. And to say otherwise is a statement to which the OPs statement definitely applies, and IMO a quite witty manner.
Agreed - as long as it works and continues to work. The new model gives me no assurance of that at all - especially given past experience with Wizards.
This. 1000x this. It's one of the main cons regarding investing in web based applications. The pros outweigh it in many situations, but it is definitely a concern. What happens if Hasbro decides that the software line is no longer something that they want to invest in, and wants to allocate those resources somewhere else? In the old world, I'd use my last update to continue on, at least until I could find another outlet. Or if/when 4e becomes totally 4E or 4.5E or whatever the inevitable version change is. With the old way, whatever the last update would let me continue to work with 4e in the way that I wanted to. In this Brave New World, when 4e is gone, I'm out of luck. Totally, in an instant. And this inevitable truth, if the facts are studied, should be blatantly obvious. Think of how many web services that used to be available are no longer available? Just head to techcrunch.com and search for deadpool to see a long list of companies... known and unknown. Just recently, I was almost affected by one; I use xmarks for syncing, and they were going to shut down in January. Thankfully there was a reprieve, but it points to just how tenuous anything in the cloud is. There's a good article on that subject on GottaBeMobile related to xmarks, but is a good read related to cloud computing in general.
the old cb wont help you anywhere there isnt power, so playing Dnd while camping i guess is out.
We play while camping, and we have power but no Internet access. And we do use CB while camping to play around with ideas. Oh well, I guess now we'll have to do something old fashioned like read on our iphones or watch movies on same. ;)
Case in point. I can't take the opposing arguments seriously because of all the "Well, no CB anymore means D&D is dead, the game can't be played anymore while camping, I'll move to something else". I guess the Bozo the Clown reference is entirely fitting here.
On the "benefits WotC, not users" argument, it's sound but partial.
If the consequences of keeping the old format were that CB wasn't profitable and WotC would discontinue it, then the customer benefit is there.
In all honesty, I have a theory. It's a cospiracy theory. The delay on the DS and Essential update is completely intentional on WotC's part. They probably have been examinating the trend of people getting a one month subscription in order to avoid having to buy books with hefty amounts of crunch but also stuff they don't want.
DS introduced themes.
Essentials introduce a wagonload of classes and feats a lot of people are wary about but still interested into.
Imagine being a user not wanting DS as a setting but still wanting themes for you FR game. You buy the book? DDI is cheaper. And so on for (especially) Essentials.
I wouldn't be surprised if they found out that no DDI update gave book sales more legs. And if they did, they proved the DDI scheme was hurting them.
Is the new DDI a "worse" deal? Quite likely, but that's the whole point because the old one was a completely unfair deal for WotC. So every user who's posting "where's my benefit as a customer?" should take a second to ask himself if the previous service had a benefit for WotC and if it's better to have a new service that sacrifices some customer comfort in order to be sustainable or if it's better to have no service at all.
+1 Sir. This isn't exactly what I was thinking, but addresses most of the main points. I'm extremely pleased that it answers that droned ongoing question "What benefit do I get from the online only CB?" poster. You get to keep getting an updated CB vs. not having one at all.
I completely agree with you that DDI (and specifically the CB) has been depressing book sales. I know it has with me. Re-up every few months and you never need to buy a players book (PHB2, PHB3, DP, MP, AP, etc). This model was more than likely unsustainable for WotC. I also agree with the conspiracy theory in that the giant swath of new content was specifically NOT put into the old CB to prevent more depressed book sales.
This whole debate reminds me of the of the software open source/proprietary non-sense, but I'll not delve into that.
That is not an unambiguous benefit. Beyond the online vs. offline issue, which is just one point, the new online builder has a significant reduction in functionality. I won't be able to export characters. I won't be able to have more than 20. I won't be able to use any house rules. I won't be able to customize my sheet. Hell, I won't be able to print landscape.
I've subscribed since day 1, I buy just about every book.
So again I ask what is the unambiguous benefit, for us, for us the existing users to the Character Builder being exclusively online?
That is not an unambiguous benefit. Beyond the online vs. offline issue, which is just one point, the new online builder has a significant reduction in functionality. I won't be able to export characters. I won't be able to have more than 20. I won't be able to use any house rules. I won't be able to customize my sheet. Hell, I won't be able to print landscape.
I've subscribed since day 1, I buy just about every book.
So again I ask what is the unambiguous benefit, for us, for us the existing users to the Character Builder being exclusively online?
Your question sir is frankly bogus and you sound like my 10 year old (Are we there yet? Are we there yet?). Since you CANNOT buy the CB separately from a DDI subscription, the correct question is:
"What is the benefit of my DDI membership vs. NOT having a DDI membership?"
or even
"Are the current benefits of a DDI membership worth the cost (to "me")?"
Because the answer to this question is SUBJECTIVE you have asked a BS question that only you can answer for yourself. Kindly supply the answer you need and stop asking us because we don't know.
(edited to slightly clarify).
the benefit is that
- you can access from mac without a VM
- you can access from everywhere* instead of just your own machine without carrying your stuff with you.
the drawbacks, of course, are also quite non-subjective:
- many features missing at start
- you can not use it offline
* with silverlight...
That is not an unambiguous benefit. Beyond the online vs. offline issue, which is just one point, the new online builder has a significant reduction in functionality. I won't be able to export characters. I won't be able to have more than 20. I won't be able to use any house rules. I won't be able to customize my sheet. Hell, I won't be able to print landscape.
I've subscribed since day 1, I buy just about every book.
So again I ask what is the unambiguous benefit, for us, for us the existing users to the Character Builder being exclusively online?
Your question sir is frankly bogus and you sound like my 10 year old (Are we there yet? Are we there yet?). Since you CANNOT buy the CB separately from a DDI subscription, the correct question is:
"What is the benefit of my DDI membership vs. NOT having a DDI membership?"
or even
"Are the current benefits of a DDI membership worth the cost (to "me")?"
Because the answer to this question is SUBJECTIVE you have asked a BS question that only you can answer for yourself. Kindly supply the answer you need and stop asking us because we don't know.
(edited to slightly clarify).
It is far from a bogus question! Originally it was asked by someone else far wiser than me and I chose to share it with this forum. And if you don't like the question being asked nor the discussion that results from it perhaps you should choose to avoid visiting the thread where said topic is being discussed.
The answer, as far as I can tell, is there is no unambiguous benefit for the current user. Which makes Bill's Ampersand article quite condescending and insulting. Yes, I can use it on a Macintosh without a virtual machine, which would matter more if I was a member of the 8% of computer users that has a Macintosh. And yes I can use it on multiple machines that have silverlight installed. But at the sacrifice of so much. There is no net gain!
The issue is twofold . One is the move to the web is not leveraging the web for the users benefit. No sharing, crowd sourcing, etc. And second in an effort to get this web tool up and runnin they've sacrificed the quality of the existing tools to rush this product. An remember the webtool is already two months late, even with a drastically reduced feature set. That does not speak well of all the updates that are at the "top of the list" and are due soon.
And because I've been a paying subscriber of DDI since the beginning the resources I have been providing Wizards money to subsidize this change that cripples the functionality of the same said tools I pay for.
And don't get me started on Monster Tools.
actually, that question can be answered close to non-subjective as it is now:
the benefit is that
- you can access from mac without a VM
- you can access from everywhere* instead of just your own machine without carrying your stuff with you.
the drawbacks, of course, are also quite non-subjective:
- many features missing at start
- you can not use it offline
* with silverlight...
I think he pretty much nailed it. And the first one on the list of benefits doesn't apply to everyone. So it's really just the second. And you can add as a sub-set of not being able to use it offline, you also can't use it anywhere that you can't access the wizards site, i.e. at a work site that filters it. Before you posh that, my work site doesn't ban access to it, but I've been some places that have. And those same places are OK with me doing stuff on my time there, i.e. on my lunch break. The two aren't mutually exclusive, as blocking sites is in general an Enterprise wide restriction, while what you specifically do with your computer is in a lot of cases not.
Sure, you just need to convince your boss/admin to let you install a program that you use only for your hobby and that accesses the internet to check for/download updates on your work computer. ;)
And just installing it without asking first is just begging to get yourself fired, so I really wouldn't recommend that to anyone.
You could use it on your private laptop, true, but some companies also have restrictions regarding what hardware an employee may bring with him and use, so that argument is also somewhat flawed.
@wraith808:
Sure, you just need to convince your boss/admin to let you install a program that you use only for your hobby and that accesses the internet to check for/download updates on your work computer. ;)
And just installing it without asking first is just begging to get yourself fired, so I really wouldn't recommend that to anyone.
You could use it on your private laptop, true, but some companies also have restrictions regarding what hardware an employee may bring with him and use, so that argument is also somewhat flawed.
Ummm... wrong again. I have always had full administrative privileges on my work computers. Workig in development does that for you. So try again.
On another note, why do people feel the need to post on something that they know nothing about? I was posting on my experiences, not on some hypothetical situation. Why not just keep that to yourself? I see that done a lot, especially on these topics.
I have full administrative privileges on my dev computer at work, too, but that doesn't give me the right to install anything I want without asking. Especially if the program isn't related to my work at all, like the CB. And even more so if the program does access the internet.
It is true that I don't know the rules at your working place. If your management is cool with stuff like that, great. At other places you can clean up your desk if something like this gets found out. So you shouldn't have made it sound as if it was generally speaking no problem to get the CBC running at your working computer.
@wraith808:
I have full administrative privileges on my dev computer at work, too, but that doesn't give me the right to install anything I want without asking. Especially if the program isn't related to my work at all, like the CB. And even more so if the program does access the internet.
It is true that I don't know the rules at your working place. If your management is cool with stuff like that, great. At other places you can clean up your desk if something like this gets found out. So you shouldn't have made it sound as if it was generally speaking no problem to get the CBC running at your working computer.
No, I think you shouldn't have assumed about my situation, since I specifically said my situation, i.e. Before you posh that, my work site doesn't ban access to it, but I've been some places that have. And those same places are OK with me doing stuff on my time there, i.e. on my lunch break.
It's cool. You assumed, and you didn't read. But don't try to cover it by putting it on me. Every place that I've been has been fine with me installing pretty much anything I wanted. That came with being in IT, especially a developer. If that hasn't been your experience, cool, but the lesson here is read before responding.
actually, that question can be answered close to non-subjective as it is now:
the benefit is that
- you can access from mac without a VM
- you can access from everywhere* instead of just your own machine without carrying your stuff with you.
the drawbacks, of course, are also quite non-subjective:
- many features missing at start
- you can not use it offline
* with silverlight...
Being able to access the CB on a Mac is not a feature for us, the existing users, as we by definition were not on Macs.
I think the only legitimate answer I've seen so far was from the dude who claimed that there were no people who use the CB in places without internet, when he said we are saved the time of install.
That's true. We can't use the CB where there is no internet, but we *are* saved the time it takes to install.
Mind you, if you're an existing CB user, the time to install is a sunk cost, but the point is taken.
It is far from a bogus question! Originally it was asked by someone else far wiser than me and I chose to share it with this forum. And if you don't like the question being asked nor the discussion that results from it perhaps you should choose to avoid visiting the thread where said topic is being discussed.
My answer still stands. I've answered your question and you dismissed it. That is your choice, but it does not change the truth of my comments. You are applying your personal situation onto everyone else. Just because it's not better for you doesn't mean it isn't better for some. The question ASSUMES that everyone is affected by this change equally which is blatantly not true. Hence the question itself is subjective and bogus. And don't make me remind you what happens when you "assume".
The answer, as far as I can tell, is there is no unambiguous benefit for the current user. Which makes Bill's Ampersand article quite condescending and insulting. Yes, I can use it on a Macintosh without a virtual machine, which would matter more if I was a member of the 8% of computer users that has a Macintosh. And yes I can use it on multiple machines that have silverlight installed. But at the sacrifice of so much.
You admit the advantages and turn right around and ignore them. And the biggest advantage of the new builder? It has the most recent errata in it as well as Dark Sun and Essentials content.
There is no net gain!
For you. By the way...NET gain defeats your whole argument. It implies that you have both benefits AND negatives. You can't claim both "no NET gain" and "no unambiguous benefit" because they are mutually exclusive.
The issue is twofold . One is the move to the web is not leveraging the web for the users benefit. No sharing, crowd sourcing, etc. And second in an effort to get this web tool up and runnin they've sacrificed the quality of the existing tools to rush this product. An remember the webtool is already two months late, even with a drastically reduced feature set. That does not speak well of all the updates that are at the "top of the list" and are due soon.
Paolo addressed this in a post somewhere. The programming team is no longer splitting their resources between supporting the old and developing the new which I'm guessing gives him some substantial additional resources.
And because I've been a paying subscriber of DDI since the beginning the resources I have been providing Wizards money to subsidize this change that cripples the functionality of the same said tools I pay for.
Nothing has been crippled. Your existing CB still works just the same as it did yesterday. In essence you're complaining about the "format" of the new content (Essentials and Dark Sun).
And don't get me started on Monster Tools.
It works fine for me. I'm sorry yours doesn't work right.
In the end all that matters is the following:
"Is the product they are selling something I want for the price they are asking?"
Other questions may be interesting, but irrelevant.
With those to consider, the CB probably needs to be online.I really don't see why. I have character builders and campaign managers for other systems that sit on my PC - they work fine. Sure, updating takes time, but once per month that is really not that big a deal. The VTT I have sits on my PC, too - and doesn't need a server setup to work. Ditto with the map creator I already have. The only reason I can see WotC wanting to keep all this stuff online is to control it themselves - I see that as a serious disincentive for me to buy.
Of course they want to control it, and thier IP Property. I'm always surprised that people get upset over the fact WoTC wants to do this. I hear the arguement that people are upset over not having direct control of their own data, but at the same time get upset when WoTC wants to do the same.
With those to consider, the CB probably needs to be online.
I really don't see why. I have character builders and campaign managers for other systems that sit on my PC - they work fine. Sure, updating takes time, but once per month that is really not that big a deal. The VTT I have sits on my PC, too - and doesn't need a server setup to work. Ditto with the map creator I already have. The only reason I can see WotC wanting to keep all this stuff online is to control it themselves - I see that as a serious disincentive for me to buy.
Of course they want to control it, and thier IP Property. I'm always surprised that people get upset over the fact WoTC wants to do this. I hear the arguement that people are upset over not having direct control of their own data, but at the same time get upset when WoTC wants to do the same.
Silly person...Corporations are EVIL!!!!!! And don't forget they're not allowed to make money or pay their employees and they have to give their stuff away for free.
/sarcasm
Funny how you ignore the last sentence that makes your statement a general one:
"The two aren't mutually exclusive, as blocking sites is in general an Enterprise wide restriction, while what you specifically do with your computer is in a lot of cases not." (See, I can also use bold print!)
Implying that being allowed to install the CBC at work on your computer was easy or a non-issue.
Also, there's the context. So the new CB had the disadvantage that you won't be able to use it at places that filter internet traffic to the WotC servers. But the CBC didn't have the disadvantage that you had to install it on the computer where you wanted to use it? Actually, at work the latter may be the bigger disadvantage because most companies have strict policies regarding what gets installed on their computers (*cough*file sharing*cough*).
@wraith808:
Funny how you ignore the last sentence that makes your statement a general one:
"The two aren't mutually exclusive, as blocking sites is in general an Enterprise wide restriction, while what you specifically do with your computer is in a lot of cases not." (See, I can also use bold print!)
Implying that being allowed to install the CBC at work on your computer was easy or a non-issue.
Also, there's the context. So the new CB had the disadvantage that you won't be able to use it at places that filter internet traffic to the WotC servers. But the CBC didn't have the disadvantage that you had to install it on the computer where you wanted to use it? Actually, at work the latter may be the bigger disadvantage because most companies have strict policies regarding what gets installed on their computers (*cough*file sharing*cough*).
See, I can reduce your bold to the salient point that you ignore not to admit you were wrong. In a lot of cases. Doesn't mean all, doesn't mean generally. It means in a lot of cases. I'm done with this. You were wrong, admit it or not. You went off the rails to try to prove me wrong... for what reason, I don't know. I brought up a valid point, and there was really no reason for you to respond, especially not as you did. But whatever.
That's true. We can't use the CB where there is no internet, but we *are* saved the time it takes to install.
- Time to install silverlight
- Probably Time to install CB into your silverlight. (depends on how they really solve this - we have not seen anything, but paolo suggested there would be small downloads involved)
With those to consider, the CB probably needs to be online.I really don't see why. I have character builders and campaign managers for other systems that sit on my PC - they work fine. Sure, updating takes time, but once per month that is really not that big a deal. The VTT I have sits on my PC, too - and doesn't need a server setup to work. Ditto with the map creator I already have. The only reason I can see WotC wanting to keep all this stuff online is to control it themselves - I see that as a serious disincentive for me to buy.
Of course they want to control it, and thier IP Property. I'm always surprised that people get upset over the fact WoTC wants to do this. I hear the arguement that people are upset over not having direct control of their own data, but at the same time get upset when WoTC wants to do the same.
Yes, of course they want to control it - I'm not sure why you raise this, though, since that was never the point at issue. I understand perfectly well that they want to control it, and why. My astonishment is that they imagine that they can persuade me, the customer, that this is of any benefit to me whatsoever. My annoyance is that they are, in practice, only gaining the ability to control the IP in ways that hurt the legitimate customer. Their action will not stop piracy of the data, or of the books, but it will prevent honest customers from being able to carry on using their product without further update or modification while gaining the benefit of an important enabling tool. If you want to use the new CB, you have better really like Essentials and whatever comes after it, and like 5E when it comes - because if you don't your game-support "services" will just have become useless to you.
That is the control I'm talking about - and it's a form of control I find distasteful in the extreme.
Is the new DDI a "worse" deal? Quite likely, but that's the whole point because the old one was a completely unfair deal for WotC. So every user who's posting "where's my benefit as a customer?" should take a second to ask himself if the previous service had a benefit for WotC and if it's better to have a new service that sacrifices some customer comfort in order to be sustainable or if it's better to have no service at all.
It is not the customers fault that this was the way the system was designed and that it was the way that the business has been the ENTIRE life of DDI. Customers are not the enemy.
There's no misunderstanding on my part: I'm simply pointing out that this post perfectly exemplifies the hypocrisy of the complaint. If what the poster is saying is true (DDI going offline makes D&D unplayable/not worth playing), then all PnP RPGs are unplayable and we've been doing it wrong for 30 years. And the thread is full of people claiming exactly this.
Then your not understanding the argument. What these people are saying is that the EXPERIENCE of playing D&D 4 has changed for the worse for these people - whatever the reason.
The CB is part of the experience.
Is the new DDI a "worse" deal? Quite likely, but that's the whole point because the old one was a completely unfair deal for WotC. So every user who's posting "where's my benefit as a customer?" should take a second to ask himself if the previous service had a benefit for WotC and if it's better to have a new service that sacrifices some customer comfort in order to be sustainable or if it's better to have no service at all.
It is not the customers fault that this was the way the system was designed and that it was the way that the business has been the ENTIRE life of DDI. Customers are not the enemy.
yes but sometimes business's can't maintain a service. The options might have been drop DDi (or the CB at least) OR do it online. So they picked the best of 2 evils. (Note I have no clue if that was the case but thinking that wotc is trying to screw us over seems silly. That is not what companies that want long term customers do. We can argue if they did screw us over but I'm sure they weren't actively trying to do so.)
Is the new DDI a "worse" deal? Quite likely, but that's the whole point because the old one was a completely unfair deal for WotC. So every user who's posting "where's my benefit as a customer?" should take a second to ask himself if the previous service had a benefit for WotC and if it's better to have a new service that sacrifices some customer comfort in order to be sustainable or if it's better to have no service at all.
It is not the customers fault that this was the way the system was designed and that it was the way that the business has been the ENTIRE life of DDI. Customers are not the enemy.
yes but sometimes business's can't maintain a service. The options might have been drop DDi (or the CB at least) OR do it online. So they picked the best of 2 evils. (Note I have no clue if that was the case but thinking that wotc is trying to screw us over seems silly. That is not what companies that want long term customers do. We can argue if they did screw us over but I'm sure they weren't actively trying to do so.)
No I have posted this again and again. If you want to change your business model, you don't just post it on the day and update is due.
They should have:
- Started with a NEW tool.
- Explain that the new model is everything online. The CB is next and when that is released the current CB will no longer be supported. During this transition period, we will still be supporting the existing CB. The CB will be replaced at some point in the future, but we will continue to support the current CB for 2 months after release.
- The same with the MB after the CB.
This is how you change a business model.
oh I agree, but that doesn't mean they're out to get us. Just that somebody isn't very good at this business thing. Since they're old business model showed that to all it means is well...frankly WotC is just not that great at business.
There is no excuse. You either choose to do it the right way or you choose to do it the wrong way. Either choice is a deliberate action.
With those to consider, the CB probably needs to be online.I really don't see why. I have character builders and campaign managers for other systems that sit on my PC - they work fine. Sure, updating takes time, but once per month that is really not that big a deal. The VTT I have sits on my PC, too - and doesn't need a server setup to work. Ditto with the map creator I already have. The only reason I can see WotC wanting to keep all this stuff online is to control it themselves - I see that as a serious disincentive for me to buy.
Of course they want to control it, and thier IP Property. I'm always surprised that people get upset over the fact WoTC wants to do this. I hear the arguement that people are upset over not having direct control of their own data, but at the same time get upset when WoTC wants to do the same.
Yes, of course they want to control it - I'm not sure why you raise this, though, since that was never the point at issue. I understand perfectly well that they want to control it, and why. My astonishment is that they imagine that they can persuade me, the customer, that this is of any benefit to me whatsoever. My annoyance is that they are, in practice, only gaining the ability to control the IP in ways that hurt the legitimate customer. Their action will not stop piracy of the data, or of the books, but it will prevent honest customers from being able to carry on using their product without further update or modification while gaining the benefit of an important enabling tool. If you want to use the new CB, you have better really like Essentials and whatever comes after it, and like 5E when it comes - because if you don't your game-support "services" will just have become useless to you.
That is the control I'm talking about - and it's a form of control I find distasteful in the extreme.
But they never presented them having better control of thier IP has a benefit for the customer. They aren't the ones mentioning it, we are.
I'm just saying it's obvious that's part of what they are doing. And I don't have a problem with that. They should protect their IP.
oh I agree, but that doesn't mean they're out to get us. Just that somebody isn't very good at this business thing. Since they're old business model showed that to all it means is well...frankly WotC is just not that great at business.
There is no excuse. You either choose to do it the right way or you choose to do it the wrong way. Either choice is a deliberate action.
Or you choose to do it the right way, unaware that it's actually the wrong way.
oh I agree, but that doesn't mean they're out to get us. Just that somebody isn't very good at this business thing. Since they're old business model showed that to all it means is well...frankly WotC is just not that great at business.
There is no excuse. You either choose to do it the right way or you choose to do it the wrong way. Either choice is a deliberate action.
Or you choose to do it the right way, unaware that it's actually the wrong way.
If they don't know that the wrong way is to drop support of the old product all together and announce a new replacement program on the day that the update was due, then there are way more fundamental things wrong with WotC then bad decisions.
On the WTF side:
-- It's not nearly as portable as they claim it is. Yes, you can access it from anywhere with web access. But that still excludes a lot of players who benefit from the absence of a need to be connected 24/7. And there are enough examples from this thread alone that this point cannot be marginalized without alienating a considerably large minority of the playerbase.
-- As a followup to the above point, it's not even accessible on what most people would consider to be "computer-like devices" like iPhones. I just recently got an iPod touch and I love it; I think it's the best example of portable computing out there, and I am by no means an Apple fanboy. But the choice to go with Silverlight means that unless someone manages to get Silverlight running on iOS, I will never be able to use my iTouch for the Character Builder. This seems like a big bucket of fail all by itself, because the implication in the editorial was that the CB would run on anything.
-- A major loss of functionality on Day One. This is the other big problem I see with how this whole thing is shaping up. A better implementation would have been to continue delivering updates for the old CB until such a time that they could release the web-based CB without taking a "step backward". It's rarely beneficial to remove functionality with nothing but a promise to reimplement it later.
On the STFU side:
-- Mac users can now use the CB. (To which I counter: Was this really that important to that many people that it superseded other concerns?) And there's actually an open-source clone of Silverlight available online, so Linux users can possibly use it as well.
-- No installation necessary. (Which isn't entirely true, but comparatively speaking the DL is likely a drop in the bucket compared to the current CB.)
-- A drop in piracy. (Arguable, really; I don't really see how they can prevent someone from sharing their Insider login as before... not to mention, I could have sworn that one point of having 5 updates a month was to allow installation on multiple computers, which by itself implies use by multiple people, even if just within a single household.)
Personally, I don't believe the pros outweigh the cons here. And one final point: why only announce this new CB after two-plus months of "delays"? You can't fail to deliver promised content and expect everyone to be happy that you're suddenly replacing what you should have been supporting all along. Especially since Mr. Slaviscek's editorial implies that they weren't even sure if it was "ready" to go until they decided to announce it publicly.
-- As a followup to the above point, it's not even accessible on what most people would consider to be "computer-like devices" like iPhones. I just recently got an iPod touch and I love it; I think it's the best example of portable computing out there, and I am by no means an Apple fanboy. But the choice to go with Silverlight means that unless someone manages to get Silverlight running on iOS, I will never be able to use my iTouch for the Character Builder. This seems like a big bucket of fail all by itself, because the implication in the editorial was that the CB would run on anything.
This is the one that gets me. When its stated: It’s ultimately portable. I can use it on any computer or computer-like device, wherever I am.
Then i expect it to work on those devices wether its IOS, Andriod or Win7 phone. Or does that simply mean it will work on Mac and PC
Other than that im kind of interested to see the result.
- anything running linux
- older macs and PCs running older windows and mac OSs. Silverlight is unsupported past OSX and XP AFAIK. NOt too many people are still on older OSs, I know.
- iOS devices of any sort.
- any other smart phone. AFAIK none of the major smartphone OSs support Silverlight, though windows phone 7 is likely to soon.
- ANY COMPUTER, NO MATTER HOW OLD OR NEW, WITHOUT WEB ACCESS
- any games console, with or without web access (apart, maybe, from XBOX consoles, do they run Silverlight?)
- my Sat Nav system
- my older, non-smart mobile/cell phone
- my graphing calculator
- my 20-year-old pocket calculator
- my dad's 30-year-old AMSTRAD
- my old school's BBC Micros
- my microwave
- my digital watch
- a 40-year-old electric typewriter
- Charles Babbage's difference engine
- an abacus
All of these are computers or computer-like devices, if you want to be literal about the definition of computer.
Anything above (and including) the line in ALLCAPS is a computer by any modern definition (apart, apparently, from Bill Slavicesk's, which would seem to be 'something with a screen and keyboard, running an OS I've heard of'). None of them can run Silverlight (apart from possibly linux systems, I don't know about the availability of FOSS Silverlight clones), nor are most of them ever likely to.
Some (most) of them are intentionally facetious, to point out the ludicrous overstatement inherent in telling us that it can run on 'any computer or computer-like device [anywhere, any time]'. That's probably unintentionally disingenuous, but it is deeply so all the same.
This point has been bugging me since I first read that article.
-- As a followup to the above point, it's not even accessible on what most people would consider to be "computer-like devices" like iPhones. I just recently got an iPod touch and I love it; I think it's the best example of portable computing out there, and I am by no means an Apple fanboy. But the choice to go with Silverlight means that unless someone manages to get Silverlight running on iOS, I will never be able to use my iTouch for the Character Builder. This seems like a big bucket of fail all by itself, because the implication in the editorial was that the CB would run on anything.
This is the one that gets me. When its stated: It’s ultimately portable. I can use it on any computer or computer-like device, wherever I am.
Then i expect it to work on those devices wether its IOS, Andriod or Win7 phone. Or does that simply mean it will work on Mac and PC
Other than that im kind of interested to see the result.
They mean that they have plans to have it accessable by those devices. Not at start, but eventually.
SO, the correct way to state that would be 'it will be ultimately portable'. Not 'it is'. The latter implies that you will be able to use it on any device you want as soon as it's released. Which is untrue.
However, taking the sentence in the context of the whole article, I understood what they meant. Because when reading, a single sentence doesn't stand alone, it's effected by that which comes before and after.
Can't run silverlight on anything using iOS so....
However, taking the sentence in the context of the whole article, I understood what they meant. Because when reading, a single sentence doesn't stand alone, it's effected by that which comes before and after.
Indeed, the article as a whole (ignoring the minor contradiction between 'any computer or computer-like device' in 1, and 'PCs and Macs' in 2) implies that the new CB will be exactly what it claims. The facts as told on the forums about it put the lie to that. It's Silverlight only, and nothing I've seen in any official announcement or forum post from any WOTC employee has suggested that that is likely to change in future. Silverlight is not compatible with a huge number of portable computing devices.
If you know otherwise (and you've certainly implied that you do), please let the rest of us know too. Let us know how you know that the CB is planned to come to other devices, please.
I picked on that particular sentence because that was the subject of the prior conversation.
The whole article is a glowing report about a future web-only program. If it actually functions as it says it will in that article, I'll be ecstatic. Nothing else we've been told about it implies that it will, however.
Having read the entire thread up to this point, I think I'd like to sum this entire argument up by separating the "WTF" arguments from the "STFU" ones.
On the WTF side:
-- It's not nearly as portable as they claim it is. Yes, you can access it from anywhere with web access. But that still excludes a lot of players who benefit from the absence of a need to be connected 24/7. And there are enough examples from this thread alone that this point cannot be marginalized without alienating a considerably large minority of the playerbase.
-- As a followup to the above point, it's not even accessible on what most people would consider to be "computer-like devices" like iPhones. I just recently got an iPod touch and I love it; I think it's the best example of portable computing out there, and I am by no means an Apple fanboy. But the choice to go with Silverlight means that unless someone manages to get Silverlight running on iOS, I will never be able to use my iTouch for the Character Builder. This seems like a big bucket of fail all by itself, because the implication in the editorial was that the CB would run on anything.
-- A major loss of functionality on Day One. This is the other big problem I see with how this whole thing is shaping up. A better implementation would have been to continue delivering updates for the old CB until such a time that they could release the web-based CB without taking a "step backward". It's rarely beneficial to remove functionality with nothing but a promise to reimplement it later.
On the STFU side:
-- Mac users can now use the CB. (To which I counter: Was this really that important to that many people that it superseded other concerns?) And there's actually an open-source clone of Silverlight available online, so Linux users can possibly use it as well.
-- No installation necessary. (Which isn't entirely true, but comparatively speaking the DL is likely a drop in the bucket compared to the current CB.)
-- A drop in piracy. (Arguable, really; I don't really see how they can prevent someone from sharing their Insider login as before... not to mention, I could have sworn that one point of having 5 updates a month was to allow installation on multiple computers, which by itself implies use by multiple people, even if just within a single household.)
Personally, I don't believe the pros outweigh the cons here. And one final point: why only announce this new CB after two-plus months of "delays"? You can't fail to deliver promised content and expect everyone to be happy that you're suddenly replacing what you should have been supporting all along. Especially since Mr. Slaviscek's editorial implies that they weren't even sure if it was "ready" to go until they decided to announce it publicly.
A nice resume of the main arguments both sides have, but please dont forget what some of us are criticising in addition to going online. It is the fact they are going online "only", therefore abandoning the chance to provide the user with all the benefits of the existing product while adding all those nice features an online CB provides.
Many people stated allready, that one of the great benefits of online tools was the fact, that they were easy to maintain, well that leaves me wondering, why not simply add a low resourcebinding product like this to the existing ones, they were able to provide up until now?
There is no reason, related to the customer and benefiting him, to replace any of the tools we had up until now, yet they do so.
-- As a followup to the above point, it's not even accessible on what most people would consider to be "computer-like devices" like iPhones. I just recently got an iPod touch and I love it; I think it's the best example of portable computing out there, and I am by no means an Apple fanboy. But the choice to go with Silverlight means that unless someone manages to get Silverlight running on iOS, I will never be able to use my iTouch for the Character Builder. This seems like a big bucket of fail all by itself, because the implication in the editorial was that the CB would run on anything.
This is the one that gets me. When its stated: It’s ultimately portable. I can use it on any computer or computer-like device, wherever I am.
Then i expect it to work on those devices wether its IOS, Andriod or Win7 phone. Or does that simply mean it will work on Mac and PC
Other than that im kind of interested to see the result.
They mean that they have plans to have it accessable by those devices. Not at start, but eventually.
So you think they plan to completely rewrite the character builder yet again in some other format when they could have just written it once in something more portable? Sorry, I can't believe that even WotC would be that stupid.
With those to consider, the CB probably needs to be online.I really don't see why. I have character builders and campaign managers for other systems that sit on my PC - they work fine. Sure, updating takes time, but once per month that is really not that big a deal. The VTT I have sits on my PC, too - and doesn't need a server setup to work. Ditto with the map creator I already have. The only reason I can see WotC wanting to keep all this stuff online is to control it themselves - I see that as a serious disincentive for me to buy.
Of course they want to control it, and thier IP Property. I'm always surprised that people get upset over the fact WoTC wants to do this. I hear the arguement that people are upset over not having direct control of their own data, but at the same time get upset when WoTC wants to do the same.
Yes, of course they want to control it - I'm not sure why you raise this, though, since that was never the point at issue. I understand perfectly well that they want to control it, and why. My astonishment is that they imagine that they can persuade me, the customer, that this is of any benefit to me whatsoever. My annoyance is that they are, in practice, only gaining the ability to control the IP in ways that hurt the legitimate customer. Their action will not stop piracy of the data, or of the books, but it will prevent honest customers from being able to carry on using their product without further update or modification while gaining the benefit of an important enabling tool. If you want to use the new CB, you have better really like Essentials and whatever comes after it, and like 5E when it comes - because if you don't your game-support "services" will just have become useless to you.
That is the control I'm talking about - and it's a form of control I find distasteful in the extreme.
But they never presented them having better control of thier IP has a benefit for the customer. They aren't the ones mentioning it, we are.
I'm just saying it's obvious that's part of what they are doing. And I don't have a problem with that. They should protect their IP.
What I describe is not "protecting their IP" - it's (an attempt at) controlling the functionality provided by their IP. They are offering their IP to rent rather than buy, in effect. When it's still available to buy elsewhere (the books). It's a position that is inconsistent, manipulative and of decidedly lower utility to me as a customer. No big deal, I just won't take out a lease.
However, taking the sentence in the context of the whole article, I understood what they meant. Because when reading, a single sentence doesn't stand alone, it's effected by that which comes before and after.
Indeed, the article as a whole (ignoring the minor contradiction between 'any computer or computer-like device' in 1, and 'PCs and Macs' in 2) implies that the new CB will be exactly what it claims. The facts as told on the forums about it put the lie to that. It's Silverlight only, and nothing I've seen in any official announcement or forum post from any WOTC employee has suggested that that is likely to change in future. Silverlight is not compatible with a huge number of portable computing devices.
If you know otherwise (and you've certainly implied that you do), please let the rest of us know too. Let us know how you know that the CB is planned to come to other devices, please.
I picked on that particular sentence because that was the subject of the prior conversation.
The whole article is a glowing report about a future web-only program. If it actually functions as it says it will in that article, I'll be ecstatic. Nothing else we've been told about it implies that it will, however.
I've never implied I know different. Get off the personal attacks.
I'm guessing that from reading anything official about the new version. WoTC has said that iPad and iPhone versions are certainly possible, but not at launch, and is something they are considering for down the road.
They mean that they have plans to have it accessable by those [Android and iOS] devices. Not at start, but eventually.
So, you were guessing when you said that. Fair enough.
But you can see how I might get the impression that you were claiming to actually know something, rather than just guessing, I hope.
If you're guessing, say you're guessing, it keeps things clear ;)
Incidentally, I intended no personal attack. I genuinely desired clarification on that point. If you choose to take that as a personal attack, that's entirely your decision.
What I describe is not "protecting their IP" - it's (an attempt at) controlling the functionality provided by their IP. They are offering their IP to rent rather than buy, in effect. When it's still available to buy elsewhere (the books). It's a position that is inconsistent, manipulative and of decidedly lower utility to me as a customer. No big deal, I just won't take out a lease.
Even the current version of the CB is just what you say, you are only renting their IP. DId you pay a seperate charge for downloading the CB? No you didn't. No one did.
You never actually buy software, you buy the right to use it. Or rent as you say. And at any time, if they feel you have used the software in a way they never intended, or threatens thier !P, they can revoke your right to use it, even sue you for damages. Not that they are going to go to that length for something like this. At best they would just ban you and your account.
I'm not sure why people think WoTC has to make it so that 1. They can get all the content for a mere $10, and should allow them to continue to do so.
Greedy people I guess. Who knows.
They mean that they have plans to have it accessable by those [Android and iOS] devices. Not at start, but eventually.
So, you were guessing when you said that. Fair enough.
But you can see how I might get the impression that you were claiming to actually know something, rather than just guessing, I hope.
If you're guessing, say you're guessing, it keeps things clear ;)
Incidentally, I intended no personal attack. I genuinely desired clarification on that point. If you choose to take that as a personal attack, that's entirely your decision.
Well, if you don't mean a personal attack, say that, keeps things clear.
I'm making an educated guess off of reading as much as a I can from WOTC without letting customers personal drama (Not you specifically) color things.
A company wants to make it's digital assests available to anyone, regardless of how they would use it. But it's a matter of cost to do so vs money it would bring in. I'm sure at this time there isn't enough Linux users to make it worth while.
And there probably isn't a one stop shop solution that would work for Linux, Window and Mac users, that would also allow them to do all the stuff they want to do.
And there probably isn't a one stop shop solution that would work for Linux, Window and Mac users, that would also allow them to do all the stuff they want to do.
HTML5. But the problem is that the authoring tools are just not there to give the rich media feel they want, in a reasonable time frame.
Apple's "iAds" stuff is probably the closest, and that isn't currently enough cross-browser. (But it will be. If you target Safari now, by the time you release in 2015 everyone else will support it. There's just the "by the time you release in 2015" part to worry about.
)I'm also assuming that they can continue to move computation out of the client to reduce the amount of actual programming they would have to validate on multiple browsers.
I'd be surprised, actually, if users of things like smart phones, iOS devices and linux systems are as under-represented in the D&D community as they are in the general public, personally. D&D has a heck of a lot more geeks than the general population, and as a group, we tend to be more inclined to use such things. I know my DM has been pretty irked about this move, because he uses linux. But you're right, that's probably a more minor issue, especially compared with iOS devices and other smart phones.
I would join you in hoping that WOTC do want to make this content available more widely.
I am as certain as I can be that there are ways of doing this securely which are available cross-platform, though the technical details elude me, I'm happy to admit that much.
I'd like to think that long-term plans include moving to one of those methods (HTML5 would probably do the trick, from what I know of it). But until such is announced officially on the site or by email, or announced by a WOTC employee on the forum, I'll continue to assume they're only using the Silverlight version under current discussion.
And there probably isn't a one stop shop solution that would work for Linux, Window and Mac users, that would also allow them to do all the stuff they want to do.
HTML5. But the problem is that the authoring tools are just not there to give the rich media feel they want, in a reasonable time frame.
Apple's "iAds" stuff is probably the closest, and that isn't currently enough cross-browser. (But it will be. If you target Safari now, by the time you release in 2015 everyone else will support it. There's just the "by the time you release in 2015" part to worry about.
I'm also assuming that they can continue to move computation out of the client to reduce the amount of actual programming they would have to validate on multiple browsers.
yes, HTML 5 isn't there yet. Hopefully, and it sounds like it, they will set things up so that moving over to HTML 5 is easy.
What I describe is not "protecting their IP" - it's (an attempt at) controlling the functionality provided by their IP. They are offering their IP to rent rather than buy, in effect. When it's still available to buy elsewhere (the books). It's a position that is inconsistent, manipulative and of decidedly lower utility to me as a customer. No big deal, I just won't take out a lease.
Even the current version of the CB is just what you say, you are only renting their IP. DId you pay a seperate charge for downloading the CB? No you didn't. No one did.
You never actually buy software, you buy the right to use it. Or rent as you say. And at any time, if they feel you have used the software in a way they never intended, or threatens thier !P, they can revoke your right to use it, even sue you for damages. Not that they are going to go to that length for something like this. At best they would just ban you and your account.
I'm not sure why people think WoTC has to make it so that 1. They can get all the content for a mere $10, and should allow them to continue to do so.
Greedy people I guess. Who knows.
Just because all software companies use this model, doesn't mean it is a good one. I don't really want to buy a license to watch a movie or use some software. particularly when the license is so restrictive, but thats the world we live in.
What I describe is not "protecting their IP" - it's (an attempt at) controlling the functionality provided by their IP. They are offering their IP to rent rather than buy, in effect. When it's still available to buy elsewhere (the books). It's a position that is inconsistent, manipulative and of decidedly lower utility to me as a customer. No big deal, I just won't take out a lease.
Even the current version of the CB is just what you say, you are only renting their IP. DId you pay a seperate charge for downloading the CB? No you didn't. No one did.
You never actually buy software, you buy the right to use it. Or rent as you say. And at any time, if they feel you have used the software in a way they never intended, or threatens thier !P, they can revoke your right to use it, even sue you for damages. Not that they are going to go to that length for something like this. At best they would just ban you and your account.
I'm not sure why people think WoTC has to make it so that 1. They can get all the content for a mere $10, and should allow them to continue to do so.
Greedy people I guess. Who knows.
Just because all software companies use this model, doesn't mean it is a good one. I don't really want to buy a license to watch a movie or use some software. particularly when the license is so restrictive, but thats the world we live in.
Well, do you have the millions of dollars it cost to develope said software to actualy own it? If they actually sell you the software, how can they sell it to someone else they don't own it anymore, you do.
Thats why this model is used, because you as a person couldn't actually afford to actually OWN the software based on what it cost to make. That's why licenses to use the software.
What I describe is not "protecting their IP" - it's (an attempt at) controlling the functionality provided by their IP. They are offering their IP to rent rather than buy, in effect. When it's still available to buy elsewhere (the books). It's a position that is inconsistent, manipulative and of decidedly lower utility to me as a customer. No big deal, I just won't take out a lease.
Even the current version of the CB is just what you say, you are only renting their IP. DId you pay a seperate charge for downloading the CB? No you didn't. No one did.
You never actually buy software, you buy the right to use it. Or rent as you say. And at any time, if they feel you have used the software in a way they never intended, or threatens thier !P, they can revoke your right to use it, even sue you for damages. Not that they are going to go to that length for something like this. At best they would just ban you and your account.
I'm not sure why people think WoTC has to make it so that 1. They can get all the content for a mere $10, and should allow them to continue to do so.
Greedy people I guess. Who knows.
Just because all software companies use this model, doesn't mean it is a good one. I don't really want to buy a license to watch a movie or use some software. particularly when the license is so restrictive, but thats the world we live in.
Well, do you have the millions of dollars it cost to develope said software to actualy own it? If they actually sell you the software, how can they sell it to someone else they don't own it anymore, you do.
Thats why this model is used, because you as a person couldn't actually afford to actually OWN the software based on what it cost to make. That's why licenses to use the software.
Psht. You can actually wrote a licence so that the user owns their copy of the software. It used to be that way. But they don't want to eat their lunch on resales. So with this licensing, only a licensed reseller can sell software. The other implications came after that fact. It also helps with selling in bulk- you can sell seats, and reduce the price on the the distribution part of the equation.
What I describe is not "protecting their IP" - it's (an attempt at) controlling the functionality provided by their IP. They are offering their IP to rent rather than buy, in effect. When it's still available to buy elsewhere (the books). It's a position that is inconsistent, manipulative and of decidedly lower utility to me as a customer. No big deal, I just won't take out a lease.
Even the current version of the CB is just what you say, you are only renting their IP. DId you pay a seperate charge for downloading the CB? No you didn't. No one did.
You never actually buy software, you buy the right to use it. Or rent as you say. And at any time, if they feel you have used the software in a way they never intended, or threatens thier !P, they can revoke your right to use it, even sue you for damages. Not that they are going to go to that length for something like this. At best they would just ban you and your account.
I'm not sure why people think WoTC has to make it so that 1. They can get all the content for a mere $10, and should allow them to continue to do so.
Greedy people I guess. Who knows.
Just because all software companies use this model, doesn't mean it is a good one. I don't really want to buy a license to watch a movie or use some software. particularly when the license is so restrictive, but thats the world we live in.
Well, do you have the millions of dollars it cost to develope said software to actualy own it? If they actually sell you the software, how can they sell it to someone else they don't own it anymore, you do.
Thats why this model is used, because you as a person couldn't actually afford to actually OWN the software based on what it cost to make. That's why licenses to use the software.
Psht. You can actually wrote a licence so that the user owns their copy of the software. It used to be that way. But they don't want to eat their lunch on resales. So with this licensing, only a licensed reseller can sell software. The other implications came after that fact. It also helps with selling in bulk- you can sell seats, and reduce the price on the the distribution part of the equation.
You own that copy, not the actual software, and can sell that copy. Just like when you buy a book, you can legally sell that copy of the book, but you don't actually own the rights to the book. Just that physical copy. The author or the publishing house own the content.
Even the current version of the CB is just what you say, you are only renting their IP. DId you pay a seperate charge for downloading the CB? No you didn't. No one did.
You never actually buy software, you buy the right to use it. Or rent as you say. And at any time, if they feel you have used the software in a way they never intended, or threatens thier !P, they can revoke your right to use it, even sue you for damages. Not that they are going to go to that length for something like this. At best they would just ban you and your account.
You seem to be confusing two things, here - the payment model and the licensing for software. Software is typically bought under a non-time-limited license. That bolded bit is important. It means that, although there are limits on what I can do with the software, the software is mine to keep and copy for personal use for as long as I wish. The fact that I may pay for it by installments or whatever has nothing to do with this.
What Wizards are doing is removing any deal whereby I can license a copy of their character builder database. They have every right to do this - I have never claimed that they don't. That does not mean that the replacement 'service' they have decided to offer has anywhere near the same utility to me as a license to keep a copy of the database, or that I will pay for this, or that I think it's a good business move to remove the availability for purchase of such a license.
I'm not sure why people think WoTC has to make it so that 1. They can get all the content for a mere $10, and should allow them to continue to do so.
I'm not sure, either, but it's not what I ask for or what I want. I have subscribed without a break to DDI since it was announced that the CB would be a proper offline license, not a web-service. I have bought every rulebook published, too. If the $10 model was a problem I would have been very happy if WotC moved to minimum 3 month subscriptions, or a one-off up-front charge for the CB if you wanted it included in your DDI 'suite'. I would have been happy with a separate DDI with codes issued at purchase of the books to access the data associated with the book's content. I am not happy at all with a "service" that means I have no effective way to walk away from the direction of development D&D takes at some future time if I don't like it. My solution is simple - I won't buy it. Which is a shame, because some of the stuff locked up with it looks like it might be quite cool. Sadly, cool =/= worth signing my soul away for.
Greedy people I guess. Who knows.
Or people who simply don't have the disposable income. Sure, there will be some cheap freeloaders, but it's not like this is a new phenomenon. When I was a schoolkid me and my friends used to use magnetic tapes to record each others' (vinyl) records. Technically, that was a breach of copyright, but (a) the record companies didn't lose a penny because of it - there was no possibility of us buying all the records because we simply didn't have the cash - and (b) the end result was a young professional with an abiding interest in music. I bought most of the stuff I had on tape - much of it twice (i.e. again when it came out on CD). And I bought much more from them besides. Together with my wife we have hundreds - maybe even thousands - of recordings in our house. That's a lot of return for a school kid recording a few cassette tapes.
You own that copy, not the actual software, and can sell that copy. Just like when you buy a book, you can legally sell that copy of the book, but you don't actually own the rights to the book. Just that physical copy. The author or the publishing house own the content.
Actually, whereas you do own a book, you do not own (a copy of the) software. You have an unlimited, transferrable license to it. It was done that way, because with a book, say, you can't take a copy (even for personal use) of the entire book, whereas with a computer program you technically have to in order for the program to run. Hence, you have a license to take copies to run the software on one computer at a time. The license is unlimited with respect to time (i.e. it doesn't just 'run out' - the big difference with the model for "software as a service") and you can transfer it to another person (in which case you no longer have it yourself).
This is in contrast to the book, where you do actually own the physical book, and can do whatever you like with it except copy it (apart from in certain, quite restricted cases).
"Pirating" is quite different in the two cases. Copy and sell a book and it is a breach of copyright law. Copy and sell a piece of software and it is breach of license terms.
Neither case is in the least like "software as a service", where once you have received one instance of the service, you must still be 'signed up' in order to receive another instance of the same service - even to do the exact same thing a second time. With something like text editing, where you can take away a file that is usable in any one of many other outlets offering essentially the same service, this is fine. In cases where you are locked into the service provider for any use or modification of the resulting "product" (in this case a character file) it's much, much less useful - and somewhat exploitative.
Even the current version of the CB is just what you say, you are only renting their IP. DId you pay a seperate charge for downloading the CB? No you didn't. No one did.
You never actually buy software, you buy the right to use it. Or rent as you say. And at any time, if they feel you have used the software in a way they never intended, or threatens thier !P, they can revoke your right to use it, even sue you for damages. Not that they are going to go to that length for something like this. At best they would just ban you and your account.
You seem to be confusing two things, here - the payment model and the licensing for software. Software is typically bought under a non-time-limited license. That bolded bit is important. It means that, although there are limits on what I can do with the software, the software is mine to keep and copy for personal use for as long as I wish. The fact that I may pay for it by installments or whatever has nothing to do with this.
What Wizards are doing is removing any deal whereby I can license a copy of their character builder database. They have every right to do this - I have never claimed that they don't. That does not mean that the replacement 'service' they have decided to offer has anywhere near the same utility to me as a license to keep a copy of the database, or that I will pay for this, or that I think it's a good business move to remove the availability for purchase of such a license.
Where you charged for the software you downloaded? No you bought a monthly account, and the software was given to you for free, so that you could use the data access you paid for.
I'm not confusing anything. I never was charged for software, I was charged for an account. Part of that account included software I could download and use.
Since they never charged anyone for the software, they really can't take it back, so people will be able to continue to use that software after the 16th. Really can't take back something that was free.
I'm not sure why people think WoTC has to make it so that 1. They can get all the content for a mere $10, and should allow them to continue to do so.
I'm not sure, either, but it's not what I ask for or what I want. I have subscribed without a break to DDI since it was announced that the CB would be a proper offline license, not a web-service. I have bought every rulebook published, too. If the $10 model was a problem I would have been very happy if WotC moved to minimum 3 month subscriptions, or a one-off up-front charge for the CB if you wanted it included in your DDI 'suite'. I would have been happy with a separate DDI with codes issued at purchase of the books to access the data associated with the book's content. I am not happy at all with a "service" that means I have no effective way to walk away from the direction of development D&D takes at some future time if I don't like it. My solution is simple - I won't buy it. Which is a shame, because some of the stuff locked up with it looks like it might be quite cool. Sadly, cool =/= worth signing my soul away for
It's entertainment. If you don't like the direction DDi goes, you simply stop buying it. At least this way, if someone decides they don't like it anyomre, they can do a refund of your remaining subscription, which they couldn't the old way, because how would they remove your software from your computer? They can't.
DDi, has always been a service. Unfortunitly, they were clearly to generous and let people get away with a lot, simply because they felt bad about how they couldn't deliver two years ago.
Greedy people I guess. Who knows.
Or people who simply don't have the disposable income. Sure, there will be some cheap freeloaders, but it's not like this is a new phenomenon. When I was a schoolkid me and my friends used to use magnetic tapes to record each others' (vinyl) records. Technically, that was a breach of copyright, but (a) the record companies didn't lose a penny because of it - there was no possibility of us buying all the records because we simply didn't have the cash - and (b) the end result was a young professional with an abiding interest in music. I bought most of the stuff I had on tape - much of it twice (i.e. again when it came out on CD). And I bought much more from them besides. Together with my wife we have hundreds - maybe even thousands - of recordings in our house. That's a lot of return for a school kid recording a few cassette tapes.
Sorry, but if someone doesn't have disposable income, then this isn't a hobby for them. This is something that is supported by disposable income. It's not a public service, it's not a basic survival need.
I'm not even going to touch the rest, because it's not really relevent.
Psht. You can actually wrote a licence so that the user owns their copy of the software. It used to be that way. But they don't want to eat their lunch on resales. So with this licensing, only a licensed reseller can sell software. The other implications came after that fact. It also helps with selling in bulk- you can sell seats, and reduce the price on the the distribution part of the equation.
You own that copy, not the actual software, and can sell that copy. Just like when you buy a book, you can legally sell that copy of the book, but you don't actually own the rights to the book. Just that physical copy. The author or the publishing house own the content.
Not if they write it as a non-transferrable license. In the initial days of software, this concept of licensing was not present when you bought software. You bought the copy. That came later.
In the United States, Section 117 of the Copyright Act gives the owner of a particular copy of software the explicit right to use the software with a computer, even if use of the software with a computer requires the making of incidental copies or adaptations (acts which could otherwise potentially constitute copyright infringement). Therefore, the owner of a copy of computer software is legally entitled to use that copy of software. Hence, if the end-user of software is the owner of the respective copy, then the end-user may legally use the software without a license from the software publisher.
Notice the difference between license and ownership. A license entitles you to use a particular piece of software. Ownership includes this ipso facto the purchase of said software. A software license is by its very nature a narrower scope than ownership, which is the reason that most (alll?) companies have moved to selling licenses, rather than software.
I look with dread on the day that they start licensing console video games- that is an effective way to kill the secondary market (at least the legal one). I'm not sure *why* this hasn't been done since many publishers are up in arms about the secondary market.
Where you charged for the software you downloaded? No you bought a monthly account, and the software was given to you for free, so that you could use the data access you paid for.
I'm not confusing anything. I never was charged for software, I was charged for an account. Part of that account included software I could download and use.
Since they never charged anyone for the software, they really can't take it back, so people will be able to continue to use that software after the 16th. Really can't take back something that was free.
Lemme try this again. Legally, etc., yadda, yadda, it makes zero = zip = no difference how you paid for the software license. You signed up to a license when you signed up for DDI. Every time, actually, if you signed up more than once. That license is not time-limited (although Wizards do reserve the right to withdraw it - in which case I would stop buying the books as well as DDI). You didn't get the software "free"; you got a license to the software as part of a subscription deal. You can imagine it any way you want (4E is all about 're-fluffing', right?), but that is what you got. That's RAW. If you don't believe me, read the EULA.
That's the long and the short of it.
DDi, has always been marketed and sold as a monthly subscription, account based service and nothing more. WoTC has made it clear that while they plan to update the character builder on a monlty bases, they also made it clear that monthly updates to the CB was not a standing feature.
That's the long and the short of it.
yeah, but that's just common sense interpretation, not the law-interpretation of it.
you can't argue one way first, then switch to just RAI to win. :-)
DDi, has always been marketed and sold as a monthly subscription, account based service and nothing more. WoTC has made it clear that while they plan to update the character builder on a monlty bases, they also made it clear that monthly updates to the CB was not a standing feature.
That's the long and the short of it.
yeah, but that's just common sense interpretation, not the law-interpretation of it.
you can't argue one way first, then switch to just RAI to win. :-)
That is also the legal version of it. WoTC made it clear what you are buying and what that includes, on a montly basis. A guarenteed content update to the CB was never part of it.
They never charged anyone extra for the CB, they gave it free, and like Trevor said, they have no intentions of asking anyone to uninstall the standalone CB.
I'm not sure why people think WoTC has to make it so that 1. They can get all the content for a mere $10,
Because they are not competent to give me only the content I want (and/or have paid for, in the form of dead-tree books) for a similar amount or for specific amounts per piece of content I want. This is a limitation of Wizards' design, and it always has been.
If in my campaign I'm only using PH, PH2, PH3 and Psionic Power, and I own all four of those books, and I want to use them online, I am:
- Forced to use Essentials Magic Item rarity
- Shown content from all other published D&D books except Essentials and Dark Sun
The apparent tradeoff has always been "no matter what content you use, you pay the same amount for everything". They don't want people paying only $1.50 (example only) per month to get electronic versions of the deadtree stuff they already own, because that's a prohibitively small revenue stream for the effort... But people aren't going to PAY $10 per month to get electronic versions of only the deadtree stuff they already own, because that's a prohibitively high continuing cost for items people already purchased.
They've always had that cost dilemma, so they went with "easiest to code" for two years. They've now chosen to offset that decision by changing their product, but they did it in an underhanded manner, and first broke (without notice of reason) the easy-to-code product they'd already sold.
I'm not sure why people think WoTC has to make it so that 1. They can get all the content for a mere $10,
Because they are not competent to give me only the content I want (and/or have paid for, in the form of dead-tree books) for a similar amount or for specific amounts per piece of content I want. This is a limitation of Wizards' design, and it always has been.
If in my campaign I'm only using PH, PH2, PH3 and Psionic Power, and I own all four of those books, and I want to use them online, I am:
- Forced to use Essentials Magic Item rarity
- Shown content from all other published D&D books except Essentials and Dark Sun
The apparent tradeoff has always been "no matter what content you use, you pay the same amount for everything". They don't want people paying only $1.50 (example only) per month to get electronic versions of the deadtree stuff they already own, because that's a prohibitively small revenue stream for the effort... But people aren't going to PAY $10 per month to get electronic versions of only the deadtree stuff they already own, because that's a prohibitively high continuing cost for items people already purchased.
They've always had that cost dilemma, so they went with "easiest to code" for two years. They've now chosen to offset that decision by changing their product, but they did it in an underhanded manner, and first broke (without notice of reason) the easy-to-code product they'd already sold.
From what they have said, and shown, you won't be forced.
If you are making an essentials character, you get those options. If you are making a Dark Sun character, you get those options. If you are making a custom character, you won't have the Dark Sun options, like it's themes.
From what everyone else has said, a webbased tool is easier to code then the stand alone. Which is true, I can't say, but it certainly seems that more people think web based is easier, and is also easy to intergrate with other tools.
The monthly cost isn't just the stuff in the CB.
First thing, the monthly updates were already beginning to fall behind before the delay in recent months. Before Darksun, even.
Coding for the client could have been done on time and in line with the hard copy books in the market, it was possible, but they needed more manpower than what they had. The recent rule changes brought about changes for the rules base that was somehow unforseen, like the unlikely (and mostly unwelcome) return of Power Points, Themes, and the new Essentials grabs at some of the 3.5 mad dash mechanics like Stances and such taking the place of Dailies. These and others, along with some Fluid (Co.) like database hardwired structure, made including these rules in a timely manner a matter of Manpower vs. Time.
With the advent of this Silverlight thing (First time I heard about this was here) along with the need to restructure the client presented Wizards with choices, and they chose to hose the customer while fixing their own problems by going with the web page option using the Silverlight client. Once again, instead of fixing the problem, they simply start over. Something Wizards has done with the Electronic Aids over and over again.
Yes, they are forcing us to subscribe instead of providing an actual stand alone program that we need. It was bad enought that you needed to subscribe to get the "official" character generator, now we need to jump through the web hoops and be online to use it. For a fair amount of hobbiest out there, this is something that they are not going to do. I do not understand why Wizards would be oblivious to this.
Yes, they are forcing us to subscribe instead of providing an actual stand alone program that we need want.
I fixed it for you.
Once again, instead of fixing the problem, they simply start over.
I suppose that depends on what problem we're talking about. They fixed their own problem quite nicely.
The only real model that would have worked for the offline builder is to sell the software retail for say $30-$50 and include PHB content in it and make you register it online so you can't install it again. Then for a nominal price they'd sell data sets for books as they come out. Updates to the logic (errata) would be free. This prevents piracy (online registration), makes you pay for each book (prevents depressed book sales), but still has the downside of no integration to other tools which they can easily now produce using a shared cloud DB.
The only real model that would have worked for the offline builder is to sell the software retail for say $30-$50 and include PHB content in it and make you register it online so you can't install it again. Then for a nominal price they'd sell data sets for books as they come out. Updates to the logic (errata) would be free.
Yep, I'd sign up for that scheme like a shot. See how easy that was?
This prevents piracy (online registration),
Well, it wouldn't, but neither does what they plan, entirely.
makes you pay for each book (prevents depressed book sales),
Or steal a code. Makes little difference to me - I buy all the books anyway (so far).
but still has the downside of no integration to other tools which they can easily now produce using a shared cloud DB.
But uploads to the cloud would be trivial. Just make a "cloud import" routine that takes .dnd4e files and it's fixed. Needs a bit more work if the file format of the .dnd4e files change, but that would be a big hassle anyway, regardless.
But the biggest problem I have with an online CB is the loss of control. I no longer have control of the characters I create. Anytime I want to make a change or just experiment, I have to log onto WotC's service. If I want to continue using the tool, even if I don't care about gaining access to new content, I'm required to continue my DDI subscription. I'm at the mercy of WotC's support staff to keep the tool up and running. Given the frequency of broken links I encounter while browsing Dragon and Dungeon magazine articles, I do not have the greatest confidence in WotC's ability to keep an online tool humming. And the fact that my characters reside on WotC servers and not my own computer holds me hostage to any changes they make to their policies in the future. "I have altered our arrangement. Pray I do not alter it further."
But if this is going to lead to a VTT, then yes, it needs to happen. Inspite of all I've said, I've always wanted the VTT. Even though my friends come over, and we have a great time, and we cook a meal for the session and it's fun, I would still love to have something like the VTT. It would be awesome to set up something where my friends bring over thier laptops and we see it all on my big tv.
So since the CB was never the end result of DDi, and I'm annoyed that after a year of waiting for more tools, that I'm going to have to wait another 3-4 months to get back to where we were, and maybe another tool, like an encounter builder, I'm hoping that this is a move in the right direction.
I know we've had two years of unsure footing. Some of that because of the economy, some of it because of WoTC's choice in Radiant Light, some of it because of Hasbro.
That's a very long time to wait. Here's hoping. Yes, I can still have hope after two years.
I know we've had two years of unsure footing. Some of that because of the economy, some of it because of WoTC's choice in Radiant Light, some of it because of Hasbro.
That's a very long time to wait. Here's hoping. Yes, I can still have hope after two years.
After listening to the latest podcast and their reasons to go online only, i can not honestly share that hope, especially if i hear how little of that decision was made to comfort the customers.
The main argument sounds to me like "Fighting piracy comes first, anything else is secondary."
If DDi was simply about the Character Builder, I would be in agreement with about everything people have issues with.
Well, for me, DDI was about 80% the character builder. Sure, there was faint hope of things to come, but what we had right now was the CB.
But if this is going to lead to a VTT, then yes, it needs to happen. Inspite of all I've said, I've always wanted the VTT. Even though my friends come over, and we have a great time, and we cook a meal for the session and it's fun, I would still love to have something like the VTT. It would be awesome to set up something where my friends bring over thier laptops and we see it all on my big tv.
So go get a VTT! I would say 'buy', but you can get a very functional one for free (MapTools - Google it). I prefer Battlegrounds because I like the visual style and the developer's approach better, but I did pay for that. Sure, you don't get fancy character automation (though you can with Fantasy Grounds), but if you are playing face-to-face with a tv/projector table or whatever, you don't need that. BG has a diceroller, initiative tracker, fog-of-war and it can be set up for game systems other than D&D and it takes plain graphics files for maps, minis, etc. I can take a map straight from the bundles I have for the WotC adventures and load them in BG as a battlemap - really easy.
So since the CB was never the end result of DDi, and I'm annoyed that after a year of waiting for more tools, that I'm going to have to wait another 3-4 months to get back to where we were, and maybe another tool, like an encounter builder, I'm hoping that this is a move in the right direction.
All of that could be done with an offline CB. Al you need is an import/export function - and it seems they already have that in the works (the import/export function - just not the offline tool to go with it). All the remake of the CB did for that was delay it.
That's a very long time to wait. Here's hoping. Yes, I can still have hope after two years.
Well, I wish you good luck with that.
So go get a VTT! I would say 'buy', but you can get a very functional one for free (MapTools - Google it). I prefer Battlegrounds because I like the visual style and the developer's approach better, but I did pay for that. Sure, you don't get fancy character automation (though you can with Fantasy Grounds), but if you are playing face-to-face with a tv/projector table or whatever, you don't need that. BG has a diceroller, initiative tracker, fog-of-war and it can be set up for game systems other than D&D and it takes plain graphics files for maps, minis, etc. I can take a map straight from the bundles I have for the WotC adventures and load them in BG as a battlemap - really easy.
Hey, you can even get fancy automation in MapTool (that's what I use).
But seriously, Dane, just start using one. They're everywhere (there are even web-based ones, like SceneGrinder). No need to sit around waiting for Wizards to figure it out.
And when/if Wizards does figure out how to make a VTT, just switch to it (if it's all integrated with the CB and MB and EB and AB and SCB and so forth, it should be a matter of clicking a button or two). There's no reason to deny yourself VTT goodness, though, while you wait.
But to have the ability to create a visual mini of your character, and have a 3D board, with hopefully 3D dungeons, and visual cues to effects on creatures, zones, and so much more, that's what the promise of WoTC's VTT was to me. The ultimate expression of the game I enjoy.
My current set up for the game is alot more exciting then any VTT currently available. I've got lots of mini, lots of tiles, and I've actually made dungeon pieces much like you can buy from Dwarven Forge.
See:
But you know, it's rather exspensive, and making all those accessories take time.
To have this, even as a digital version, would save me a lot of time. And I can't do things like lighting and special effects from spells. Having a little icon over a mini's head, denoting bloodied, slowed, feared or whatever, makes everything easier to remember.
We've got a good system in place for that, but we still forget.
Clearly, I love this game, and I put a lot of work into it to raise my game from a dry erease map and some minis and markers. I want to visually see as much as possible, and my players love it as well.
With as much work as I put into my game. (All my adventures are written out, and layed out as if a published adventure, I do drawings of NPCs, and make "The Story so Far" books to give to my players). You would think that I would be raging for WOTC to come out with these tools, as they are only going to make my game far more awesome for me and my players.
But that's just not me. I'm a work together person. I'm a how can we make this work kind of person.
I've worked with enough different kinds of people that I have learned that yelling and screaming and tantrums do nothing to solve a problem. Getting angry and venting often alienates you from the very people you want something from.
Being reasonable, understanding, but not a kiss ass gets you farther. Show you are a reasonable person, you get respect, and when you have respect, you words hold more weight when someone that respects you dissappoints you.
But if you are a name calling spaz, who thinks insults are the way to go, everytime you have an issue, the first thing someone thinks is, "There goes So and so, being a drama queen."
That's why I can have hope.
And it's a whole lot better quality of life I give myself being hopeful (which is different then blind faith), then say, being a negative person.
And there probably isn't a one stop shop solution that would work for Linux, Window and Mac users, that would also allow them to do all the stuff they want to do.
HTML5. But the problem is that the authoring tools are just not there to give the rich media feel they want, in a reasonable time frame.
Apple's "iAds" stuff is probably the closest, and that isn't currently enough cross-browser. (But it will be. If you target Safari now, by the time you release in 2015 everyone else will support it. There's just the "by the time you release in 2015" part to worry about.
I'm also assuming that they can continue to move computation out of the client to reduce the amount of actual programming they would have to validate on multiple browsers.
It could also have been done as a rich web application (WEB2.0) with out any HTML5 tools AND been compatible with most platforms. Just like these forms are.
It could also have been done as a rich web application (WEB2.0) with out any HTML5 tools AND been compatible with most platforms. Just like these forms are.
Yeah, I think there were a lot better solutions than Silverlight that would have offered greater compatability. It's almost as if they saw a nice, "new," shiny product and thought it would be fun to use it. I can't really knock that from a programmer's standpoint. I do have a friend that does make use of Silverlight from time to time in his solutions. It can be pretty slick when used correctly.
The VTT that WoTC is hoping to have, is the one I want. Like I said, my players come to my place, and we have a great time. We don't need a VTT.
Ah, okay. I'd inferred some sort of strange self-denial from your initial post ("The WotC VTT or nothing! Fetch me my hair shirt!") but I understand where you're coming from; sorry about that. Nice work, by the way!
See, for me, I can't play D&D unless I play online* - my groups are both remote from me, and always have been since I first picked up the game (which I, too, love dearly - it brought me back to gaming after like, 10 years of nothing and has not ceased to inspire me). I couldn't wait for a VTT solution, so I found / made one, and never looked back (in fact, I'm sufficiently satisfied in my solution to the problem that although it would be neat if Wizards created one, it's not a big deal to me if they don't).
* Or by myself. Which is okay, but the DM is a railroading bastard.
It could also have been done as a rich web application (WEB2.0) with out any HTML5 tools AND been compatible with most platforms. Just like these forms are.
Yeah, I think there were a lot better solutions than Silverlight that would have offered greater compatability. It's almost as if they saw a nice, "new," shiny product and thought it would be fun to use it. I can't really knock that from a programmer's standpoint. I do have a friend that does make use of Silverlight from time to time in his solutions. It can be pretty slick when used correctly.
Well I don't think it's a conicedence that right about the time they claim to have started this project, Microsofts big TechEd was happening and they were pushing Silverlight and Cloud pretty hard. I was there, it was compelling, but I couldn't really justify it anywheres over a standard client. Good thing I didn't since they've recently changed gears and see HTML5 as the future of web apps.
The VTT that WoTC is hoping to have, is the one I want. Like I said, my players come to my place, and we have a great time. We don't need a VTT.
Ah, okay. I'd inferred some sort of strange self-denial from your initial post ("The WotC VTT or nothing! Fetch me my hair shirt!") but I understand where you're coming from; sorry about that. Nice work, by the way!
See, for me, I can't play D&D unless I play online* - my groups are both remote from me, and always have been since I first picked up the game (which I, too, love dearly - it brought me back to gaming after like, 10 years of nothing and has not ceased to inspire me). I couldn't wait for a VTT solution, so I found / made one, and never looked back (in fact, I'm sufficiently satisfied in my solution to the problem that although it would be neat if Wizards created one, it's not a big deal to me if they don't).
* Or by myself. Which is okay, but the DM is a railroading bastard.
My group uses a VTT and projects it onto the game table (it's pretty sweet). saves the DM from printing maps and we get a richer more immersive experience over a chessex map and markers. The DM uses images to mark status and NPCs and we use our personal mini's for players. it is a great setup.
Well I don't think it's a conicedence that right about the time they claim to have started this project, Microsofts big TechEd was happening and they were pushing Silverlight and Cloud pretty hard. I was there, it was compelling, but I couldn't really justify it anywheres over a standard client. Good thing I didn't since they've recently changed gears and see HTML5 as the future of web apps.
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
I guess we can wait and see. Maybe Silverlight and Cloud will really take off and Apple will have no choice but to conform. I'm not holding my breath.
Well I don't think it's a conicedence that right about the time they claim to have started this project, Microsofts big TechEd was happening and they were pushing Silverlight and Cloud pretty hard. I was there, it was compelling, but I couldn't really justify it anywheres over a standard client. Good thing I didn't since they've recently changed gears and see HTML5 as the future of web apps.
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
I guess we can wait and see. Maybe Silverlight and Cloud will really take off and Apple will have no choice but to conform. I'm not holding my breath.
Flash is well embedded and they still don't support it
Funny thing is at TechEd I was in a session where a guy claimed to have inside knowledge that MS and Apple were working together on a Silverlight implementation for iPad/Phone. Though nothing has manifested, even reputable rumors. I think it was wishful thinking on his part.
Flash is well embedded and they still don't support it
Funny thing is at TechEd I was in a session where a guy claimed to have inside knowledge that MS and Apple were working together on a Silverlight implementation for iPad/Phone. Though nothing has manifested, even reputable rumors. I think it was wishful thinking on his part.
Yeah, it's hard for me to really take issue with Microsoft, or Wizards for that matter. I mean, Apple has had that chastity belt on since their inception. They just have never been that willing to share or play nicely.
Flash is well embedded and they still don't support it
Funny thing is at TechEd I was in a session where a guy claimed to have inside knowledge that MS and Apple were working together on a Silverlight implementation for iPad/Phone. Though nothing has manifested, even reputable rumors. I think it was wishful thinking on his part.
Yeah, it's hard for me to really take issue with Microsoft, or Wizards for that matter. I mean, Apple has had that chastity belt on since their inception. They just have never been that willing to share or play nicely.
/agree
Apple is big in the head right now and want to set the direction of technology for the next 5- 10 years. While they are having some success, they are going to get bitten sooner or later.
Flash is well embedded and they still don't support it
Funny thing is at TechEd I was in a session where a guy claimed to have inside knowledge that MS and Apple were working together on a Silverlight implementation for iPad/Phone. Though nothing has manifested, even reputable rumors. I think it was wishful thinking on his part.
Yeah, it's hard for me to really take issue with Microsoft, or Wizards for that matter. I mean, Apple has had that chastity belt on since their inception. They just have never been that willing to share or play nicely.
I don't take issue with Microsoft on this - but I can certainly take issue with Wizards. Nobody forced them to make statements like "It’s ultimately portable. I can use it on any computer or computer-like device, wherever I am."
I don't know how one can make that statement and not understand that most people will think that that means things like the iPad or Androids and iPhones... (the alternative is to believe that Bill lives in a strange world where all computers and computer like devices run either Windows or OSX and at all times have a connection to the internet...)
Flash is well embedded and they still don't support it
Funny thing is at TechEd I was in a session where a guy claimed to have inside knowledge that MS and Apple were working together on a Silverlight implementation for iPad/Phone. Though nothing has manifested, even reputable rumors. I think it was wishful thinking on his part.
Yeah, it's hard for me to really take issue with Microsoft, or Wizards for that matter. I mean, Apple has had that chastity belt on since their inception. They just have never been that willing to share or play nicely.
I don't take issue with Microsoft on this - but I can certainly take issue with Wizards. Nobody forced them to make statements like "It’s ultimately portable. I can use it on any computer or computer-like device, wherever I am."
I don't know how one can make that statement and not understand that most people will think that that means things like the iPad or Androids and iPhones... (the alternative is to believe that Bill lives in a strange world where all computers and computer like devices run either Windows or OSX and at all times have a connection to the internet...)
"It's Ultimately portable" doesn't mean that right at this instant it is available on all devices. It means that they can get it on all platforms eventually. Also, given that he is talking about an on-line character builder, complaining that it isn't available where there is no internet is kindof disingenious. It's an online-only tool. The requirement that internet be available is built into the statement.
"It's Ultimately portable" doesn't mean that right at this instant it is available on all devices. It means that they can get it on all platforms eventually. Also, given that he is talking about an on-line character builder, complaining that it isn't available where there is no internet is kindof disingenious. It's an online-only tool. The requirement that internet be available is built into the statement.
Which is why taking one line, out of context of the whole article and focusing on that leads to misunderstanding.
When I read the article, I knew what he was saying is that going this route will make it, IN TIME, usable on a wide range of devices and platforms. The problem with developing anything digital is that with all the options, there isn't any single one good way to develop one thing, that works on everything.
Sure, people and companies talk about that, but we've been hearing that for decades, about how eventually everything will be unified, or whatever. Forgive my sceptiscism but I doubt that.
Flash is well embedded and they still don't support it
Funny thing is at TechEd I was in a session where a guy claimed to have inside knowledge that MS and Apple were working together on a Silverlight implementation for iPad/Phone. Though nothing has manifested, even reputable rumors. I think it was wishful thinking on his part.
Yeah, it's hard for me to really take issue with Microsoft, or Wizards for that matter. I mean, Apple has had that chastity belt on since their inception. They just have never been that willing to share or play nicely.
I don't take issue with Microsoft on this - but I can certainly take issue with Wizards. Nobody forced them to make statements like "It’s ultimately portable. I can use it on any computer or computer-like device, wherever I am."
I don't know how one can make that statement and not understand that most people will think that that means things like the iPad or Androids and iPhones... (the alternative is to believe that Bill lives in a strange world where all computers and computer like devices run either Windows or OSX and at all times have a connection to the internet...)
"It's Ultimately portable" doesn't mean that right at this instant it is available on all devices. It means that they can get it on all platforms eventually. Also, given that he is talking about an on-line character builder, complaining that it isn't available where there is no internet is kindof disingenious. It's an online-only tool. The requirement that internet be available is built into the statement.
I don't even understand how it is ultimately portable using silverlight. It's not supported by apple, and there is no plan to support it. Same with android. So where exactly is it portable too besides the two OS's listed there? I can't name one computer like device that will run the new CB. The statement is just false. The only way it's portable is if you re-write it to another platform(java, HTML5, pure web), in which case the old CB was also portable. Since the underlying .NET libaries are portable from client to web.
it is an ultimately an uninformed statement by someone who does not know the specifics of what they are talking about.
So Bill's using "ultimate" in the "at the conclusion" sense, as opposed to its "to the highest degree" sense?
If he really meant that, he should have used a different word, rather than choose one with such a different (and in this case untrue) meaning. His context tells you that he means the latter anyway.
Every other issue aside, I think he should neither have said that it's usable on any computer-like device NOR that it's ultimately portable. Those two statements are not even close to true, and makes me lose a lot of respect for Wizards.
Any chance we can get Bill here to clarify his words?
I don't think Bill intentionally used a word with two meanings in an ambiguous sense to try to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. I think he was just wrong.
"It's Ultimately portable" doesn't mean that right at this instant it is available on all devices. It means that they can get it on all platforms eventually. Also, given that he is talking about an on-line character builder, complaining that it isn't available where there is no internet is kindof disingenious. It's an online-only tool. The requirement that internet be available is built into the statement.
Which is why taking one line, out of context of the whole article and focusing on that leads to misunderstanding.
When I read the article, I knew what he was saying is that going this route will make it, IN TIME, usable on a wide range of devices and platforms. The problem with developing anything digital is that with all the options, there isn't any single one good way to develop one thing, that works on everything.
Sure, people and companies talk about that, but we've been hearing that for decades, about how eventually everything will be unified, or whatever. Forgive my sceptiscism but I doubt that.
Read it the way you want to read it then the statement becomes meaningless. By that meaning the old character builder was "ultimately portable" because they could have added support for other platforms in the fullness of time.
AL, LightInfo, I was just kidding (actually, you wouldn't phrase it the way he did if you meant "at its conclusion").
I don't think Bill intentionally used a word with two meanings in an ambiguous sense to try to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. I think he was just wrong.
Grammatically speaking you could say "This is ultimately portable" and mean "This will eventually be portable," so there's no reason he couldn't say that, except that his context strongly implies otherwise. It would be clearer to say "Ultimately, this will be portable" as the future tense conveys the meaning better.
There is NO way that they can provide a solution on EVERY device and platform. It's not realistic, nor should it ever be an expectation. There will always be a "one-off" that is lurking in the shadows.
That being said, considering the current volatile atmosphere, it's probably best for Wizards to be very careful choosing words to describe anything about the software at this point in time, unless they are 100% certain about what they are saying can (and cannot) be done.
As such, I read the statement as "It is our intent to support as many devices and platforms as we can, but we realize that we cannot support everything inclusively."
As such, I read the statement as "It is our intent to support as many devices and platforms as we can, but we realize that we cannot support everything inclusively."
I dunno, I think that's a lot of read-in for something where the initial intent was probably "I can use this in so many places, because it's megaportably awesome," without considering whether "ultimate" was going to be parsed in two ways.
It's not ultimately portable in the sense of "to the highest degree," so Bill was wrong there - but whatever. Frankly, I think the Dark Sun / Essentials comments were more tacky given the grief over those particular updates, but that's a personal opinion.
I dunno, I think that's a lot of read-in for something where the initial intent was probably "I can use this in so many places, because it's megaportably awesome," without considering whether "ultimate" was going to be parsed in two ways.
That's pretty much what I said, except more "official-like."
More accurately, it's probably "We're going to do our best." But that really opens up a big can. The bigger question is how they prioritize their projects and what we'll get first vs. what people want.
Let's just inject a little common sense and logic into this discussion, please.
There is NO way that they can provide a solution on EVERY device and platform. It's not realistic, nor should it ever be an expectation. There will always be a "one-off" that is lurking in the shadows.
That being said, considering the current volatile atmosphere, it's probably best for Wizards to be very careful choosing words to describe anything about the software at this point in time, unless they are 100% certain about what they are saying can (and cannot) be done.
As such, I read the statement as "It is our intent to support as many devices and platforms as we can, but we realize that we cannot support everything inclusively."
If it was their intent to support as many platforms as they can then silverlight 4 was a supremely bad choice. As annoying as it is, Flash would have been an massively better choice - it is already supported on more platforms than silverlight will ever support - and ironically, the reason they gave in the podcast today for not going with flash (no iPad support) is actually less true of flash than it is of silverlight. Adobe has a tool to allow some flash apps to be recompiled into iOS applications. So if it had been written in Flash there is actually a chance that it could have been made to work on iPad/iPhone.
AL, LightInfo, I was just kidding (actually, you wouldn't phrase it the way he did if you meant "at its conclusion").
I don't think Bill intentionally used a word with two meanings in an ambiguous sense to try to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. I think he was just wrong.
Agreed. In addition, I'd like for those who assumed that he was meaning such a feature would be available eventually to explain the remark being entirely in present tense. As this seems to be a features list of what benefits exist at launch (which is suggested by how every other number is handled), then why wouldn't he have used future tense for that particular comment? By using the present tense, the comment carries the implication of present capability. As nothing in the article actually indicates such "new technology opportunities" have not already been leveraged, I see no real basis to expect anyone only reading to article to not expect such support on Nov 16.
Let's just inject a little common sense and logic into this discussion, please.
There is NO way that they can provide a solution on EVERY device and platform. It's not realistic, nor should it ever be an expectation. There will always be a "one-off" that is lurking in the shadows.
That being said, considering the current volatile atmosphere, it's probably best for Wizards to be very careful choosing words to describe anything about the software at this point in time, unless they are 100% certain about what they are saying can (and cannot) be done.
As such, I read the statement as "It is our intent to support as many devices and platforms as we can, but we realize that we cannot support everything inclusively."
If it was their intent to support as many platforms as they can then silverlight 4 was a supremely bad choice. As annoying as it is, Flash would have been an massively better choice - it is already supported on more platforms than silverlight will ever support - and ironically, the reason they gave in the podcast today for not going with flash (no iPad support) is actually less true of flash than it is of silverlight. Adobe has a tool to allow some flash apps to be recompiled into iOS applications. So if it had been written in Flash there is actually a chance that it could have been made to work on iPad/iPhone.
You're forgetting that they leveraged their existing code base (I'm guessing the "rules engine") by using Silverlight. It was chosen most likely due to time constraints and the ability to reuse substantial sections of their existing code. They also said that every app they develop will be developed in whatever makes the most sense for that app. See my previous post about offline apps.
If it was their intent to support as many platforms as they can then silverlight 4 was a supremely bad choice.
I've said as much at least a half dozen times, but there really isn't anything that anyone can do about that right now. I don't think that Silverlight is going anywhere anytime soon. It's just really late to the party and has a lot of drinking to catch up on.
Frankly a character viewer would be easy to develop (for any of the smaller "computer like devices") as all you're really talking about is an interface to (in the .d&d4e format - XML) some data in a file locally stored on your device and the ability to track resource usage.
By "character viewer", are you meaning a different form of CB specifically utilized on other devices? I only ask becuase it would strike me as truly odd for someone to list a feature of the CB as it being usable on computer-like devices, if they actually meant that you would simply be able to view your character but not build or edit one.
You're forgetting that they leveraged their existing code base (I'm guessing the "rules engine") by using Silverlight. It was chosen most likely due to time constraints and the ability to reuse substantial sections of their existing code. They also said that every app they develop will be developed in whatever makes the most sense for that app. See my previous post about offline apps.
Which makes it extremely unlikely that we will ever see the Character Builder on any other platform, because it would require them to completely re-write the rules engine (and would mean any change to the rules engine would have to be made twice) thus removing the other meaning of "ultimately portable"
Frankly a character viewer would be easy to develop (for any of the smaller "computer like devices") as all you're really talking about is an interface to (in the .d&d4e format - XML) some data in a file locally stored on your device and the ability to track resource usage.
By "character viewer", are you meaning a different form of CB specifically utilized on other devices? I only ask becuase it would strike me as truly odd for someone to list a feature of the CB as it being usable on computer-like devices, if they actually meant that you would simply be able to view your character but not build or edit one.
Don't confuse my ideas/suggestions with statements from WotC. What I'm saying (as a developer) that it would be VERY easy to code an interface to an XML file on multiple platforms (such as Andriod, iPhone, etc.) in a very short amount of time. Being able to actually EDIT your character (changing feats, leveling up, etc) would still be restricted by needing Silverlight/CB and online access, but I can't think of a scenario where you absolutely have to have edit access to your character at the table. Level up should be something you do in between sessions (that's how I do it with my group when I DM), but if you really want to level up mid-session I suppose you could just tell your players to bring 2 versions of their character (one at each level).
There are of course some scenarios that this doesn't fix, but it does handle most of the want for offline access.
Frankly a character viewer would be easy to develop (for any of the smaller "computer like devices") as all you're really talking about is an interface to (in the .d&d4e format - XML) some data in a file locally stored on your device and the ability to track resource usage.
By "character viewer", are you meaning a different form of CB specifically utilized on other devices? I only ask becuase it would strike me as truly odd for someone to list a feature of the CB as it being usable on computer-like devices, if they actually meant that you would simply be able to view your character but not build or edit one.
Don't confuse my ideas/suggestions with statements from WotC. What I'm saying (as a developer) that it would be VERY easy to code an interface to an XML file on multiple platforms (such as Andriod, iPhone, etc.) in a very short amount of time. Being able to actually EDIT your character (changing feats, leveling up, etc) would still be restricted by needing Silverlight/CB and online access, but I can't think of a scenario where you absolutely have to have edit access to your character at the table. Level up should be something you do in between sessions (that's how I do it with my group when I DM), but if you really want to level up mid-session I suppose you could just tell your players to bring 2 versions of their character (one at each level).
There are of course some scenarios that this doesn't fix, but it does handle most of the want for offline access.
I didn't confuse your comment for a statement from WotC. You gave this as an explaination for Bill's remark of the CB being "ultimately portable", and I am merely pointing out that such a viewer would have no relevance to the the CB itself (which is what was described as "ultimately portable", not the ability to access your characters).
You're forgetting that they leveraged their existing code base (I'm guessing the "rules engine") by using Silverlight. It was chosen most likely due to time constraints and the ability to reuse substantial sections of their existing code. They also said that every app they develop will be developed in whatever makes the most sense for that app. See my previous post about offline apps.
Which makes it extremely unlikely that we will ever see the Character Builder on any other platform, because it would require them to completely re-write the rules engine (and would mean any change to the rules engine would have to be made twice) thus removing the other meaning of "ultimately portable"
Your focus is way too narrow to have any decent conversation with you about this if you are going to focus exclusively on CB and "edit" access to your character. Give me a good (non-corner case) scenario where you would need to edit your character at the table that can't be handled the old fashioned way of just writing down your new trinket and adding it to your PC when you get home for next time. IMO people are blowing the online only access way out of proportion to the point of absurdity. I will supply the only case I've read about that qualifies: A hobby store hosting encounters with no internet access. New player comes in and needs to create a PC. Beyond that I honestly can't think of any situation where you'd need that kind of access. I do have to say that this example is pretty close to corner case IMO.
I agree, I could be totally fine with an Iplay4e like app or access to the characters in such a way so that they can be played from offline apps.
Then I can view my characters on my Blackberry, Nook, and Zune.
Which makes it extremely unlikely that we will ever see the Character Builder on any other platform, because it would require them to completely re-write the rules engine (and would mean any change to the rules engine would have to be made twice) thus removing the other meaning of "ultimately portable"
Your focus is way too narrow to have any decent conversation with you about this if you are going to focus exclusively on CB and "edit" access to your character.
Did you realize you are discussing offline access amidst a discussion primarily focused on alternative device access? You have made direct responses multiple times about offline use to posts that clearly discussed access via iPad, iPhone, etc. I personally accept that online was implied by Bill's article due to the prior mention of the CB now being web only. I also see it as less than reasonable to assume that Bill didn't mean accessing the new CB when describing what he liked about the new CB. By attempting to shift the discussion away from the CB or edit access, you are ignoring that the issue at present is whether the comment about "ultimate portability" was meaning at launch or in time.
Frankly a character viewer would be easy to develop (for any of the smaller "computer like devices") as all you're really talking about is an interface to (in the .d&d4e format - XML) some data in a file locally stored on your device and the ability to track resource usage.
By "character viewer", are you meaning a different form of CB specifically utilized on other devices? I only ask becuase it would strike me as truly odd for someone to list a feature of the CB as it being usable on computer-like devices, if they actually meant that you would simply be able to view your character but not build or edit one.
Don't confuse my ideas/suggestions with statements from WotC. What I'm saying (as a developer) that it would be VERY easy to code an interface to an XML file on multiple platforms (such as Andriod, iPhone, etc.) in a very short amount of time. Being able to actually EDIT your character (changing feats, leveling up, etc) would still be restricted by needing Silverlight/CB and online access, but I can't think of a scenario where you absolutely have to have edit access to your character at the table. Level up should be something you do in between sessions (that's how I do it with my group when I DM), but if you really want to level up mid-session I suppose you could just tell your players to bring 2 versions of their character (one at each level).
There are of course some scenarios that this doesn't fix, but it does handle most of the want for offline access.
I didn't confuse your comment for a statement from WotC. You gave this as an explaination for Bill's remark of the CB being "ultimately portable", and I am merely pointing out that such a viewer would have no relevance to the the CB itself (which is what was described as "ultimately portable", not the ability to access your characters).
It took me all of 30 seconds to find this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows and note that windows still holds 91% of home computer OS'es. Mac OSX according to this: www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/how-long-unt... holds another 4.76%. Since Silverlight runs on both and that accounts for almost 96% of the market I'm not sure how this is not "ultimately portable".
What I'd genuinely like to know is what percentage of people own an electronic device (such as an iPhone, Android, etc.) that do NOT own a computer. I know I personally own several computers, but not one such other device as a tablet or phone. The problem with Trevor's "ultimately portable" comment is that anyone who feels like it just has to say "Well it won't run on X so therefore it isn't ultimately portable." In this case it doesn't matter what X is or how much market share it has because no proof is required. Just saying it makes it true while ignoring the context of the comment. If only 5% of people own a iPhone and the CB won't run on it, is that enough to justify that it's no longer "ulitmately portable"? What about 10%, 20%? Do you see where this is going? What is the point in the sand at which you (subjectively) declare that it is so?
Fact: Most people have a computer.
Fact: Most of those computers run either Windows or Mac (96% to be precise).
Just for fun let's pretend that 10% of all people don't own a computer. In this case there is an 86.4% chance that any given location you are at has a computer. If we further assume that 10% of people that own a computer don't have internet access that brings us down to 77.8% chance you'll have access to the CB at any given location. I doubt that if you take all the "computer like devices" (iPhone, Andriod, Kindle, iPad, etc.) and add their market penetration together you won't even get close to this number. More and more people are getting these devices that is true, but they don't have anywhere near market saturation like computers do. So no, I can't take seriously any comments regarding how "It won't run on X therefore it's not ultimately portable".
Which makes it extremely unlikely that we will ever see the Character Builder on any other platform, because it would require them to completely re-write the rules engine (and would mean any change to the rules engine would have to be made twice) thus removing the other meaning of "ultimately portable"
Your focus is way too narrow to have any decent conversation with you about this if you are going to focus exclusively on CB and "edit" access to your character. Give me a good (non-corner case) scenario where you would need to edit your character at the table that can't be handled the old fashioned way of just writing down your new trinket and adding it to your PC when you get home for next time. IMO people are blowing the online only access way out of proportion to the point of absurdity. I will supply the only case I've read about that qualifies: A hobby store hosting encounters with no internet access. New player comes in and needs to create a PC. Beyond that I honestly can't think of any situation where you'd need that kind of access. I do have to say that this example is pretty close to corner case IMO.
You can't refute my statement so you completely change the subject. I never claimed that not being able to edit a character at the table was a huge problem for me. What I was claiming is that what Bill claimed in his Ampersand article was untrue. The new character builder is NOT ultimately portable in either of the meanings that people have chosen to ascribe to it.
Also, if you take a look at the format of the .dnd4e files you would realize that the likelihood of an offline character viewer (one that while off-line could open up a dnd4e file and fully display a character) is not likely to happen. The dnd4e file does not have the information needed to display the data of a power - for that you either need to reference the compendium or have an offline copy of the database (which would go against the reason they are making the character builder online)
1: D&D players are geeks, for the most part. We, as a demographic, are FAR more likely to use alternate OSs, and have a vastly higher proportion of users on Macs and Linux systems than in the general public, not to mention mobile devices, smartphones and the like. On which note:
2: 'Portable' implies mobile devices. Tablets. iOS devices. Other smartphones. Not just personal computer OSs.
Ultimately (:P), 'ultimately' was far too strong a word to use IMO, as was 'any computer or computer-like device'. Even if 96% of people can use it, that isn't ULTIMATELY usable. That phraseology implies EVERYONE can use it, on any web-enabled device. it is an absolute statement, and I, for one, cannot read it any other way. It is untrue, to my mind.
I guess you're at an impasse with a lot of the posters on this thread, because many of us cannot take seriously people who read the phrasing used in that article the way you do, just like you can't take seriously the way we read it. It would be to the benefit of everyone's continued sanity and safe blood pressure, I suspect, if we all just agreed to differ.
Who's with me =D ?
Which makes it extremely unlikely that we will ever see the Character Builder on any other platform, because it would require them to completely re-write the rules engine (and would mean any change to the rules engine would have to be made twice) thus removing the other meaning of "ultimately portable"
Your focus is way too narrow to have any decent conversation with you about this if you are going to focus exclusively on CB and "edit" access to your character. Give me a good (non-corner case) scenario where you would need to edit your character at the table that can't be handled the old fashioned way of just writing down your new trinket and adding it to your PC when you get home for next time. IMO people are blowing the online only access way out of proportion to the point of absurdity. I will supply the only case I've read about that qualifies: A hobby store hosting encounters with no internet access. New player comes in and needs to create a PC. Beyond that I honestly can't think of any situation where you'd need that kind of access. I do have to say that this example is pretty close to corner case IMO.
You can't refute my statement so you completely change the subject. I never claimed that not being able to edit a character at the table was a huge problem for me. What I was claiming is that what Bill claimed in his Ampersand article was untrue. The new character builder is NOT ultimately portable in either of the meanings that people have chosen to ascribe to it.
Also, if you take a look at the format of the .dnd4e files you would realize that the likelihood of an offline character viewer (one that while off-line could open up a dnd4e file and fully display a character) is not likely to happen. The dnd4e file does not have the information needed to display the data of a power - for that you either need to reference the compendium or have an offline copy of the database (which would go against the reason they are making the character builder online)
See previous post.
kenjoon: Two points:
1: D&D players are geeks, for the most part. We, as a demographic, are FAR more likely to use alternate OSs, and have a vastly higher proportion of users on Macs and Linux systems than in the general public, not to mention mobile devices, smartphones and the like. On which note:
2: 'Portable' implies mobile devices. Tablets. iOS devices. Other smartphones. Not just personal computer OSs.
Ultimately (:P), 'ultimately' was far too strong a word to use IMO, as was 'any computer or computer-like device'. Even if 96% of people can use it, that isn't ULTIMATELY usable. That phraseology implies EVERYONE can use it, on any web-enabled device. it is an absolute statement, and I, for one, cannot read it any other way. It is untrue, to my mind.
I guess you're at an impasse with a lot of the posters on this thread, because many of us cannot take seriously people who read the phrasing used in that article the way you do, just like you can't take seriously the way we read it. It would be to the benefit of everyone's continued sanity and safe blood pressure, I suspect, if we all just agreed to differ.
Who's with me =D ?
I guess what I see is some unfortunate extra text. Why do I call it unfortunate? Because point 2 specifically contradicts point 1. And I'm sure none of you have ever made a mistake. His is just a little more visible. The point about being "ultimately portable"? That is quantified by the sentence that follows it saying what it means to be "ultimately portable". It's not subjective. He says exactly what he means by it "I can use it on any computer, wherever I am." (and at 96% saturation I'd say that's pretty close) Should he go and edit his posting? Absolutely.
About points 1 and 2 contradicting....PC and Mac are not "computer like devices", and "computer like devices" are not PC's or Mac's.
Excerpt:
There are five things I really, really like about the new Character Builder.
- It’s ultimately portable. I can use it on any computer or computer-like device, wherever I am.
- It’s both PC and Mac friendly. I can access it from either kind of machine.
You seem to be willing to forgive him these errors, and read the intent of the statement (about which I do agree with you. I understand what WOTC are tryi8ng to do here, I just dislike the execution). I'm not feeling particularly forgiving. Someone in his position should damn well know better.
I have some patience for people making mistakes, but there have simply been too many for me in the execution of this change.
Once more, sigh. I'll leave it there.
It took me all of 30 seconds to find this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows and note that windows still holds 91% of home computer OS'es. Mac OSX according to this: www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/how-long-unt... holds another 4.76%. Since Silverlight runs on both and that accounts for almost 96% of the market I'm not sure how this is not "ultimately portable".
What I'd genuinely like to know is what percentage of people own an electronic device (such as an iPhone, Android, etc.) that do NOT own a computer. I know I personally own several computers, but not one such other device as a tablet or phone. The problem with Trevor's "ultimately portable" comment is that anyone who feels like it just has to say "Well it won't run on X so therefore it isn't ultimately portable." In this case it doesn't matter what X is or how much market share it has because no proof is required. Just saying it makes it true while ignoring the context of the comment. If only 5% of people own a iPhone and the CB won't run on it, is that enough to justify that it's no longer "ulitmately portable"? What about 10%, 20%? Do you see where this is going? What is the point in the sand at which you (subjectively) declare that it is so?
Fact: Most people have a computer.
Fact: Most of those computers run either Windows or Mac (96% to be precise).
Just for fun let's pretend that 10% of all people don't own a computer. In this case there is an 86.4% chance that any given location you are at has a computer. If we further assume that 10% of people that own a computer don't have internet access that brings us down to 77.8% chance you'll have access to the CB at any given location. I doubt that if you take all the "computer like devices" (iPhone, Andriod, Kindle, iPad, etc.) and add their market penetration together you won't even get close to this number. More and more people are getting these devices that is true, but they don't have anywhere near market saturation like computers do. So no, I can't take seriously any comments regarding how "It won't run on X therefore it's not ultimately portable".
Wow, what a diatribe, too bad it is completely, utterly, irrelevant.
Portability is not defined by the number of people who can get access to a product - that is accessibility, not portability. Portability is the sum of circumstances in which you can have access to the product.
Though the statistics for OS usage have no listing of how they actually reached those numbers, I'll gladly concede the point that Windows and OSX have a vast majority of the desktop OS installs.
You completely discount all computer-like devices, because almost everyone who has one owns a computer. That's nice - but they do not always have access to their computer - that would be part of why they have devices like smart phones. Also Bill specifically mentioned computer-like devices... tell me how many computer-like devices do you know of that run OSX or Windows? I personally don't know of any, because things running Windows or OSX tend to be referred to as computers...
You also make some rather baseless assumptions. You assume we are always at someones place - what about while on a bus, or in a plane. You likewise assume that while you are at someone's place that has a computer that you will unerringly have access to that computer - or that you will be able to access their internet if they have it.
A lot of made up statistics and unfounded assumptions - but in the end it doesn't matter, because it does not mean a thing to portability.
There's really no sense in taking pot shots at one another. It ultimately does not matter about any of the demographics. We're getting what we are getting. We are not entitled to it, however. If we want to use it, we need to meet their prerequisites. If we don't meet those, we don't use the service.
Going off on these tangents does nothing but spark hostility. Obviously, everyone has varying degrees of knowledge on the subject, but let's just agree to disagree and focus on what we know. CB on Silverlight.
Mm, that bugged me about the statement. 1 and 2 are mutually contradictory. TBH, this is one of the pieces of publicity (and I find it very sad that I have to say 'one of' in that sentence) that reads to me as a misinformed individual without much technical know-how blustering about how awesome the new development that their team is working on is, without knowing much about the fine workings of it. It strikes me that if he'd run it past anyone with half an understanding of it, they could have suggested some edits to make it less blatantly incorrect. Hell, I'm no programmer, and I could have made sure of at least some of that.
You seem to be willing to forgive him these errors, and read the intent of the statement (about which I do agree with you. I understand what WOTC are tryi8ng to do here, I just dislike the execution). I'm not feeling particularly forgiving. Someone in his position should damn well know better.
I have some patience for people making mistakes, but there have simply been too many for me in the execution of this change.
Once more, sigh. I'll leave it there.
In case he's reading I agree with you. He needs to run his posts by Paolo for obvious goofs like this one. And note that both of us are apparently more tech-savvy than he is. He reminds me of some of the sales guys here at work (and no I don't mean this as a dig), but they can say some of the most ridiculous things when it comes to our tech which aren't even close to true.
He reminds me of some of the sales guys here at work (and no I don't mean this as a dig), but they can say some of the most ridiculous things when it comes to our tech which aren't even close to true.
Ah, yes. My favorite thing to say.
"Jason, did you check with Support before you told the Channel Partner that to see if we could even do it?"
"No" is the meek response (the only time he is meek, of course).
*sigh* "Mmmmmmmhmmmmm. Okay. I'll find a solution for you..."
He reminds me of some of the sales guys here at work (and no I don't mean this as a dig), but they can say some of the most ridiculous things when it comes to our tech which aren't even close to true.
Ah, yes. My favorite thing to say.
"Jason, did you check with Support before you told the Channel Partner that to see if we could even do it?"
"No" is the meek response (the only time he is meek, of course).
*sigh* "Mmmmmmmhmmmmm. Okay. I'll find a solution for you..."
ROFL!!!!!!
If I go to my sister's house, I have the laptop, but no internet.
Riding on a road trip.
Some places with wifi block the Wizard's site and so I could not access an online only CB there either.
I cannot access it from my iphone, and Mac users are out of luck as well (so you do not even gain those users) because it is Silverlight based.
However, here at home, where I am making this post, I do have access.
Also, I have 44 pcs saved right now...different versions...some are 'special' NPCs' and stuff, but it is way more than 20.
So what unambiguous benefit do I gain?
More developers? That is at best an ambiguous benefit. How do you know that WotC isn't planning to lay off all the extra devs so they can provide the same service for a lower cost? Faster updates? Well, update 1 should have been back in September if they wanted to convince me of that? New features? They haven't even gotten the old ones back in yet (print? Hello, print!). Better access to updates? Not when I don't have an internet.
At the VERY least (as in absolute minimum) we should be able to view a completed character offline without resorting to third party tools that WotC won't support..
Flash is well embedded and they still don't support it
Funny thing is at TechEd I was in a session where a guy claimed to have inside knowledge that MS and Apple were working together on a Silverlight implementation for iPad/Phone. Though nothing has manifested, even reputable rumors. I think it was wishful thinking on his part.
Yeah, it's hard for me to really take issue with Microsoft, or Wizards for that matter. I mean, Apple has had that chastity belt on since their inception. They just have never been that willing to share or play nicely.
I don't take issue with Microsoft on this - but I can certainly take issue with Wizards. Nobody forced them to make statements like "It’s ultimately portable. I can use it on any computer or computer-like device, wherever I am."
I don't know how one can make that statement and not understand that most people will think that that means things like the iPad or Androids and iPhones... (the alternative is to believe that Bill lives in a strange world where all computers and computer like devices run either Windows or OSX and at all times have a connection to the internet...)
"It's Ultimately portable" doesn't mean that right at this instant it is available on all devices. It means that they can get it on all platforms eventually. Also, given that he is talking about an on-line character builder, complaining that it isn't available where there is no internet is kindof disingenious. It's an online-only tool. The requirement that internet be available is built into the statement.
Everything that you have said, can be done with an offline CB as well. The data can online in the cloud and outside of it and it can be PORTABLE with a client for mobile platforms.
It took me all of 30 seconds to find this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows and note that windows still holds 91% of home computer OS'es. Mac OSX according to this: www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/how-long-unt... holds another 4.76%. Since Silverlight runs on both and that accounts for almost 96% of the market I'm not sure how this is not "ultimately portable".
What I'd genuinely like to know is what percentage of people own an electronic device (such as an iPhone, Android, etc.) that do NOT own a computer. I know I personally own several computers, but not one such other device as a tablet or phone. The problem with Trevor's "ultimately portable" comment is that anyone who feels like it just has to say "Well it won't run on X so therefore it isn't ultimately portable." In this case it doesn't matter what X is or how much market share it has because no proof is required. Just saying it makes it true while ignoring the context of the comment. If only 5% of people own a iPhone and the CB won't run on it, is that enough to justify that it's no longer "ulitmately portable"? What about 10%, 20%? Do you see where this is going? What is the point in the sand at which you (subjectively) declare that it is so?
Fact: Most people have a computer.
Fact: Most of those computers run either Windows or Mac (96% to be precise).
Just for fun let's pretend that 10% of all people don't own a computer. In this case there is an 86.4% chance that any given location you are at has a computer. If we further assume that 10% of people that own a computer don't have internet access that brings us down to 77.8% chance you'll have access to the CB at any given location. I doubt that if you take all the "computer like devices" (iPhone, Andriod, Kindle, iPad, etc.) and add their market penetration together you won't even get close to this number. More and more people are getting these devices that is true, but they don't have anywhere near market saturation like computers do. So no, I can't take seriously any comments regarding how "It won't run on X therefore it's not ultimately portable".
1. No one has argued that non-Windows and non-Mac home PC users are not the majority of the home computer market. By your standards, the new CB is only marginally more portable than the previous CB (as a 4.76% is not really sufficient to brag as a feature).
2. Mac user access was addressed as an entirely seperate point on the list (specifically, the second feature).
3. Arguing that most people may access the new CB is not the same as stating:
"It’s ultimately portable. I can use it on any computer or computer-like device, wherever I am."
4. Trevor did not write the article being discussed, Bill Slavicsek did.
5. "Ultimately portable" (what was stated) is not exactly the same as claiming "more than reasonably accessible" (what you keep trying to prove).
6. Even your straw man is rife with faulty logic (95.76% is not 96%, which is important when one uses the words "to be precise"; home PCs do not translate to access when not at a persons residence; making arbitrary assumptions on statistics invalidates the point of searching for them in the first place; comparing access to home PCs with the accessibility given by portable computer-like devices is like claiming that cell phones don't grant a user more access to a phone than land lines; etc).
I feel you have either utterly missed the topic being discussed, or are so intent on proving that WotC's product can be used by most customers that you have failed to realize we are directly discussing what some of us feel is incorrect information being stated as a current feature. Either way, I suggest you stop working so hard at proving people wrong regarding things they never said.
"It's Ultimately portable" doesn't mean that right at this instant it is available on all devices. It means that they can get it on all platforms eventually. Also, given that he is talking about an on-line character builder, complaining that it isn't available where there is no internet is kindof disingenious. It's an online-only tool. The requirement that internet be available is built into the statement.
Which is why taking one line, out of context of the whole article and focusing on that leads to misunderstanding.
When I read the article, I knew what he was saying is that going this route will make it, IN TIME, usable on a wide range of devices and platforms. The problem with developing anything digital is that with all the options, there isn't any single one good way to develop one thing, that works on everything.
Sure, people and companies talk about that, but we've been hearing that for decades, about how eventually everything will be unified, or whatever. Forgive my sceptiscism but I doubt that.
Read it the way you want to read it then the statement becomes meaningless. By that meaning the old character builder was "ultimately portable" because they could have added support for other platforms in the fullness of time.
It does not become meaningless, because it had meaning for me.
Don't try and force your view onto me as the only reasonable view, thank you very much.
The number in the US is closer to 50-60%.
and MANY of those are on dial-up. Not everyone lives in New York or LA.
I have relatives who cannot get broadband (except hideously overpriced satellite service)
Relatives living within 40 miles of the 3rd and 4th largest cities in the country.
In case he's reading I agree with you. He needs to run his posts by Paolo for obvious goofs like this one. And note that both of us are apparently more tech-savvy than he is. He reminds me of some of the sales guys here at work (and no I don't mean this as a dig), but they can say some of the most ridiculous things when it comes to our tech which aren't even close to true.
Run them by Paolo? The same Paolo who was claiming that the reason for the 20 character limit was to protect against DoS attacks?
Sadly I don't think he is the person you want to be running your post by to check for inaccuracies.
Numerous people (most recently v3rlon) have responded in this thread and others to say exactly why offline access matters to the way they play.
Then a few posts later, another comes along to say with absolute confidence, "Yeah, but offline access isn't really necessary because you can get online anywhere, duh."
That argument has been countered repeatedly. Stop pretending it doesn't matter to people; stop acting like people have no grounds for desiring offline access. I understand we're not likely to get it anytime soon if at all. But stop making it sound like no one ever has any reason to want something they can use offline, especially after that pointless argument has been repeatedly countered.
I’ve removed content from this thread because baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code of Conduct here: wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg...
not even goign to go into how much i feel abused by WoTC ...
gl
I’ve removed content from this thread because baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code of Conduct here: wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg...
Please remember that while you may not share someone's opinion, this is the place to bait or flame. Be respectful.
The main point is, portability to Smart phones or internet tablets was never a concern for Wizards, this is done for three reasons, which I will repost here...
1. The limits of the offline client and the need for monthly updates was getting to much for the little manpower that they had. Moving to the online database somehow makes this easier for Wizards to impliments all the quirkey rules that have been popping up, and updates can be done immediately and with no participation for the user.
2. Protection of IP, no explanation needed here.
3. better intergration between tools from here foward. MM is next, IMHO, to be online only, and I foresee the Visualizar to be coming, used at a testbed for the next advent of features as it is used to create fancy portraits for the CB.
Portibility was the last thing on their minds, though the Mac inclusion is a bonus for us.
1. No one has argued that non-Windows and non-Mac home PC users are not the majority of the home computer market. By your standards, the new CB is only marginally more portable than the previous CB (as a 4.76% is not really sufficient to brag as a feature).
2. Mac user access was addressed as an entirely seperate point on the list (specifically, the second feature).
3. Arguing that most people may access the new CB is not the same as stating:
"It’s ultimately portable. I can use it on any computer or computer-like device, wherever I am."
4. Trevor did not write the article being discussed, Bill Slavicsek did.
5. "Ultimately portable" (what was stated) is not exactly the same as claiming "more than reasonably accessible" (what you keep trying to prove).
6. Even your straw man is rife with faulty logic (95.76% is not 96%, which is important when one uses the words "to be precise"; home PCs do not translate to access when not at a persons residence; making arbitrary assumptions on statistics invalidates the point of searching for them in the first place; comparing access to home PCs with the accessibility given by portable computer-like devices is like claiming that cell phones don't grant a user more access to a phone than land lines; etc).
I feel you have either utterly missed the topic being discussed, or are so intent on proving that WotC's product can be used by most customers that you have failed to realize we are directly discussing what some of us feel is incorrect information being stated as a current feature. Either way, I suggest you stop working so hard at proving people wrong regarding things they never said.
What we have is people intentionally reading only what they want to read and then representing it as the truth, then using that to say what liars WotC are. The quote:
"It’s ultimately portable. I can use it on any computer or computer-like device, wherever I am."
First of all let's take out the obviously incorrect portion of this statement so it becomes (I say obvious because his 2nd point specifically says PC and Mac - neither of which are "computer like devices"):
"It’s ultimately portable. I can use it on any computer, wherever I am."
Now let's take out the PR (spin/advertisement):
"I can use it on any computer, wherever I am."
Add in point 2 and now it's:
"I can use it on any Mac or PC, wherever I am."
Now we add some more context. In the previous two paragraphs he says "The first place we decided to make changes was to move from a client-based to a web-based tool set. We are moving to a web-based solution to make the tools accessible to multiple platforms" so now we have:
"I can use it on any Mac or PC with internet access, wherever I am."
What I've been saying is that everyone just keeps reading "ultimately portable" and ignoring EVERYTHING else as if it wasn't said or doesn't exist and then claims how he lies. Every portion of the truth is there, but ignored. You can make up ANY definition you want for "ultimately portable" and then cite example after example how it isn't true, but how about we try the truth. Try reading everything that was said in context and then commenting. But I guess...to quote that great line..."You can't handle the truth!"
"It’s ultimately portable. I can use it on any computer or computer-like device, wherever I am."
First of all let's take out the obviously incorrect portion of this statement so it becomes (I say obvious because his 2nd point specifically says PC and Mac - neither of which are "computer like devices"):
-snipped-
What I've been saying is that everyone just keeps reading "ultimately portable" and ignoring EVERYTHING else as if it wasn't said or doesn't exist and then claims how he lies. Every portion of the truth is there, but ignored. You can make up ANY definition you want for "ultimately portable" and then cite example after example how it isn't true, but how about we try the truth. Try reading everything that was said in context and then commenting. But I guess...to quote that great line..."You can't handle the truth!"
Wait, you started by stating that you were ignoring part of his statement because it was obviously false, and then come back telling people to stop ignoring parts of the article? I cannot prove that he lied because I suspect that he doesn't have the technical knowledge to know that his statement was untrue, but it's definitely a false statement.
1. No one has argued that non-Windows and non-Mac home PC users are not the majority of the home computer market. By your standards, the new CB is only marginally more portable than the previous CB (as a 4.76% is not really sufficient to brag as a feature).
2. Mac user access was addressed as an entirely seperate point on the list (specifically, the second feature).
3. Arguing that most people may access the new CB is not the same as stating:
"It’s ultimately portable. I can use it on any computer or computer-like device, wherever I am."
4. Trevor did not write the article being discussed, Bill Slavicsek did.
5. "Ultimately portable" (what was stated) is not exactly the same as claiming "more than reasonably accessible" (what you keep trying to prove).
6. Even your straw man is rife with faulty logic (95.76% is not 96%, which is important when one uses the words "to be precise"; home PCs do not translate to access when not at a persons residence; making arbitrary assumptions on statistics invalidates the point of searching for them in the first place; comparing access to home PCs with the accessibility given by portable computer-like devices is like claiming that cell phones don't grant a user more access to a phone than land lines; etc).
I feel you have either utterly missed the topic being discussed, or are so intent on proving that WotC's product can be used by most customers that you have failed to realize we are directly discussing what some of us feel is incorrect information being stated as a current feature. Either way, I suggest you stop working so hard at proving people wrong regarding things they never said.
What we have is people intentionally reading only what they want to read and then representing it as the truth, then using that to say what liars WotC are. The quote:
"It’s ultimately portable. I can use it on any computer or computer-like device, wherever I am."
First of all let's take out the obviously incorrect portion of this statement so it becomes (I say obvious because his 2nd point specifically says PC and Mac - neither of which are "computer like devices"):
"It’s ultimately portable. I can use it on any computer, wherever I am."
Now let's take out the PR (spin/advertisement):
"I can use it on any computer, wherever I am."
Add in point 2 and now it's:
"I can use it on any Mac or PC, wherever I am."
Now we add some more context. In the previous two paragraphs he says "The first place we decided to make changes was to move from a client-based to a web-based tool set. We are moving to a web-based solution to make the tools accessible to multiple platforms" so now we have:
"I can use it on any Mac or PC with internet access, wherever I am."
What I've been saying is that everyone just keeps reading "ultimately portable" and ignoring EVERYTHING else as if it wasn't said or doesn't exist and then claims how he lies. Every portion of the truth is there, but ignored. You can make up ANY definition you want for "ultimately portable" and then cite example after example how it isn't true, but how about we try the truth. Try reading everything that was said in context and then commenting. But I guess...to quote that great line..."You can't handle the truth!"
In other words, just put words together from different bullet points so it looks better?
Gotcha. I thought the article was written in English.
What we have is people intentionally reading only what they want to read and then representing it as the truth, then using that to say what liars WotC are.
Really?
"It’s ultimately portable. I can use it on any computer or computer-like device, wherever I am."
First of all let's take out the obviously incorrect portion of this statement so it becomes (I say obvious because his 2nd point specifically says PC and Mac - neither of which are "computer like devices"):
"It’s ultimately portable. I can use it on any computer, wherever I am."
Now let's take out the PR (spin/advertisement):
"I can use it on any computer, wherever I am."
"You see, what we have here is someone intentionally reading only what they want to read and then representing it as the truth"
How can you seriously accuse others of this when your entire point relies upon this very concept?
Add in point 2 and now it's:
"I can use it on any Mac or PC, wherever I am."
So you contend that he somehow made a mistake when writing point one, and divided it needlessly into two points while accidentally adding specific information that made those points seperate along the way? I contend that has to be the most impressive display of someone "intentionally reading only what they want to read and representing it as the truth" I have ever seen.
Now we add some more context. In the previous two paragraphs he says "The first place we decided to make changes was to move from a client-based to a web-based tool set. We are moving to a web-based solution to make the tools accessible to multiple platforms" so now we have:
"I can use it on any Mac or PC with internet access, wherever I am."
What I've been saying is that everyone just keeps reading "ultimately portable" and ignoring EVERYTHING else as if it wasn't said or doesn't exist and then claims how he lies. Every portion of the truth is there, but ignored. You can make up ANY definition you want for "ultimately portable" and then cite example after example how it isn't true, but how about we try the truth. Try reading everything that was said in context and then commenting. But I guess...to quote that great line..."You can't handle the truth!"
The only person who I have seen that is not actually reading everything in the article has been you. You have directly stated you are intentionally ignoring things you feel must be mistakes because you feel he couldn't possibly have meant what he actually wrote. The rest of us are reading more than just "ultimately portable", as we keep addressing the entire point one as it was presented. Simply because the first point contains a glaring issue, does not mean it was not clearly conveying the intended message (which I feel even the choice of the term "portability" adequately represents a distinction of claiming access from any residential PC or Mac, else the proper term would be accessibility).
What I describe is not "protecting their IP" - it's (an attempt at) controlling the functionality provided by their IP. They are offering their IP to rent rather than buy, in effect. When it's still available to buy elsewhere (the books). It's a position that is inconsistent, manipulative and of decidedly lower utility to me as a customer. No big deal, I just won't take out a lease.
Even the current version of the CB is just what you say, you are only renting their IP. DId you pay a seperate charge for downloading the CB? No you didn't. No one did.
You never actually buy software, you buy the right to use it. Or rent as you say. And at any time, if they feel you have used the software in a way they never intended, or threatens thier !P, they can revoke your right to use it, even sue you for damages. Not that they are going to go to that length for something like this. At best they would just ban you and your account.
I'm not sure why people think WoTC has to make it so that 1. They can get all the content for a mere $10, and should allow them to continue to do so.
Greedy people I guess. Who knows.
Just because all software companies use this model, doesn't mean it is a good one. I don't really want to buy a license to watch a movie or use some software. particularly when the license is so restrictive, but thats the world we live in.
Well, do you have the millions of dollars it cost to develope said software to actualy own it? If they actually sell you the software, how can they sell it to someone else they don't own it anymore, you do.
Thats why this model is used, because you as a person couldn't actually afford to actually OWN the software based on what it cost to make. That's why licenses to use the software.
That's why 3rd party software is pumped out by individuals in their basement in their free time in a month or two... not buying it...
Psht. You can actually wrote a licence so that the user owns their copy of the software. It used to be that way. But they don't want to eat their lunch on resales. So with this licensing, only a licensed reseller can sell software. The other implications came after that fact. It also helps with selling in bulk- you can sell seats, and reduce the price on the the distribution part of the equation.
You own that copy, not the actual software, and can sell that copy. Just like when you buy a book, you can legally sell that copy of the book, but you don't actually own the rights to the book. Just that physical copy. The author or the publishing house own the content.
Not if they write it as a non-transferrable license. In the initial days of software, this concept of licensing was not present when you bought software. You bought the copy. That came later.
In the United States, Section 117 of the Copyright Act gives the owner of a particular copy of software the explicit right to use the software with a computer, even if use of the software with a computer requires the making of incidental copies or adaptations (acts which could otherwise potentially constitute copyright infringement). Therefore, the owner of a copy of computer software is legally entitled to use that copy of software. Hence, if the end-user of software is the owner of the respective copy, then the end-user may legally use the software without a license from the software publisher.
Notice the difference between license and ownership. A license entitles you to use a particular piece of software. Ownership includes this ipso facto the purchase of said software. A software license is by its very nature a narrower scope than ownership, which is the reason that most (alll?) companies have moved to selling licenses, rather than software.
I look with dread on the day that they start licensing console video games- that is an effective way to kill the secondary market (at least the legal one). I'm not sure *why* this hasn't been done since many publishers are up in arms about the secondary market.
Actually you need to go back and read your console games last page of the instruction manual...
Yes, they are forcing us to subscribe instead of providing an actual stand alone program that we need want.
I fixed it for you.Once again, instead of fixing the problem, they simply start over.
I suppose that depends on what problem we're talking about. They fixed their own problem quite nicely.
The only real model that would have worked for the offline builder is to sell the software retail for say $30-$50 and include PHB content in it and make you register it online so you can't install it again. Then for a nominal price they'd sell data sets for books as they come out. Updates to the logic (errata) would be free. This prevents piracy (online registration), makes you pay for each book (prevents depressed book sales), but still has the downside of no integration to other tools which they can easily now produce using a shared cloud DB.
yeah... see they just as easily could have done the shared DB on the clients computer. Its a matter of semantics... They even admitted that it was done for piracy, which is ignorant. This won't even slow piracy down...
You guys have really got to stop focusing on one line.
It's hard not to focus on one line when it's the first item in your short list of reasons to love the new program and it's flat-out wrong. Honestly, I would not be surprised to find that many people just gave up and stopped reading there. The rest only kept reading to find more problems. :D
You guys have really got to stop focusing on one line.
It's hard not to focus on one line when it's the first item in your short list of reasons to love the new program and it's flat-out wrong. Honestly, I would not be surprised to find that many people just gave up and stopped reading there. The rest only kept reading to find more problems. :D
However, there is all this that comes before:
We’ll launch the new Character Builder with a known issues list and FAQ, as well as with other roadmaps to highlight launch functionality and to lay out what we plan to do with future builds of the tool. Tool by tool, we’ll use the known issues lists and FAQs to make sure that there’s as little confusion as possible about what works, what we’d like to do in the future, and what we won’t be tackling in the near term.
There are five things I really, really like about the new Character Builder.
- It’s ultimately portable. I can use it on any computer or computer-like device, wherever I am.
- It’s both PC and Mac friendly. I can access it from either kind of machine.
- There are multiple character sheet options. I can pick an Essentials character sheet or a sheet that takes advantage of the digital medium, and we can add other versions of sheets as demand warrants.
- The user interface is better. We’ve learned a lot, tested a lot, and made a tool that is easier to navigate and use.
- Content filters are better. The D&D game is loaded with content, and the new Character Builder offers lots of ways to filter that content for you. You can make choices up front to limit the amount of information you’re bombarded with, and you can add more elements later as your play style and game mastery demands.
From their point of view, moving this to online, is the first step in solving accessablity without exspensive cross platform/device development. One source, multiple access is what I'm sure they are going for.
And please forgive me, I've read all the expert opinions about, You can't do this, or that if you use this. Since so many people on the forum are armchair programmers, with nothing to show to back up their knowledge, I'm taking all those opinions as just that, opinions. By definition, opinions don't need to be supported by facts.
His list is written in present tense, not future tense. If he had wanted to imply that these were all coming eventually, he should have used future tense. Combined with the second half of #1 "I can use it on any computer ... wherever I am," the context words of "any" and "wherever" clearly implies that "ultimately" means "to the highest degree."
ultimately
-adverb
in the end; at last; finally
_____
As an adverb, I can find one definition, above, which could reflect a goal, not necessarily a current status.
The adjective ultimate has varied definitions, and one such variation if ultimate is last; furthest or farthest; last in a series.
_____
This argument is semantical at best. The intent was explained after the fact, which should be more than sufficient from one human being communicating with another human being.
However, there is all this that comes before:We’ll launch the new Character Builder with a known issues list and FAQ, as well as with other roadmaps to highlight launch functionality and to lay out what we plan to do with future builds of the tool. Tool by tool, we’ll use the known issues lists and FAQs to make sure that there’s as little confusion as possible about what works, what we’d like to do in the future, and what we won’t be tackling in the near term.
There are five things I really, really like about the new Character Builder.
- It’s ultimately portable. I can use it on any computer or computer-like device, wherever I am.
-snipped-
Except the list was specifically about the new character builder. Nice try though.
And please forgive me, I've read all the expert opinions about, You can't do this, or that if you use this. Since so many people on the forum are armchair programmers, with nothing to show to back up their knowledge, I'm taking all those opinions as just that, opinions. By definition, opinions don't need to be supported by facts.
I don't know about these other guys, but I do it for a living. And not Visual basic against an Access database. Mult-imillion dollar 3 tier billing systems. So I have a decent idea about what's involved in a venture like this.
However, there is all this that comes before:We’ll launch the new Character Builder with a known issues list and FAQ, as well as with other roadmaps to highlight launch functionality and to lay out what we plan to do with future builds of the tool. Tool by tool, we’ll use the known issues lists and FAQs to make sure that there’s as little confusion as possible about what works, what we’d like to do in the future, and what we won’t be tackling in the near term.
There are five things I really, really like about the new Character Builder.
- It’s ultimately portable. I can use it on any computer or computer-like device, wherever I am.
-snipped-
Except the list was specifically about the new character builder. Nice try though.
Accept the article was about the new digital directions, and the list was the benefits of moving the CB online in regards to the future of the tools as a whole.
Oh and for ultimely meaning eventually. Well, the first definition you get for it, when you look it up is:
last; furthest or farthest; ending a process or series: the ultimate point in a journey; the ultimate style in hats.
Eventually the CB will be portable where ever you go. The end of the process leads to the CB being portable.
Oh and I am sitting in an office of editors, and they said they don't know what editors you talked to, but the sentence, in context was correct. And these are editors who write textbooks for schools.
I also asked my editors friends at various Magazines, they agreed.
However, there is all this that comes before:We’ll launch the new Character Builder with a known issues list and FAQ, as well as with other roadmaps to highlight launch functionality and to lay out what we plan to do with future builds of the tool. Tool by tool, we’ll use the known issues lists and FAQs to make sure that there’s as little confusion as possible about what works, what we’d like to do in the future, and what we won’t be tackling in the near term.
There are five things I really, really like about the new Character Builder.
- It’s ultimately portable. I can use it on any computer or computer-like device, wherever I am.
-snipped-
Except the list was specifically about the new character builder. Nice try though.
Accept the article was about the new digital directions, and the list was the benefits of moving the CB online in regards to the future of the tools as a whole.
Oh and for ultimely meaning eventually. Well, the first definition you get for it, when you look it up is:
last; furthest or farthest; ending a process or series: the ultimate point in a journey; the ultimate style in hats.
Eventually the CB will be portable where ever you go. The end of the process leads to the CB being portable.
Oh and I am sitting in an office of editors, and they said they don't know what editors you talked to, but the sentence, in context was correct. And these are editors who write textbooks for schools.
I also asked my editors friends at various Magazines, they agreed.
Accept the article was about the new digital directions, and the list was the benefits of moving the CB online in regards to the future of the tools as a whole.
Oh and for ultimely meaning eventually. Well, the first definition you get for it, when you look it up is:
last; furthest or farthest; ending a process or series: the ultimate point in a journey; the ultimate style in hats.
Eventually the CB will be portable where ever you go. The end of the process leads to the CB being portable.
Oh and I am sitting in an office of editors, and they said they don't know what editors you talked to, but the sentence, in context was correct. And these are editors who write textbooks for schools.
I also asked my editors friends at various Magazines, they agreed.
Obviously, more than one is needed and they are probably worked to the bone.
However, there is all this that comes before:We’ll launch the new Character Builder with a known issues list and FAQ, as well as with other roadmaps to highlight launch functionality and to lay out what we plan to do with future builds of the tool. Tool by tool, we’ll use the known issues lists and FAQs to make sure that there’s as little confusion as possible about what works, what we’d like to do in the future, and what we won’t be tackling in the near term.
There are five things I really, really like about the new Character Builder.
- It’s ultimately portable. I can use it on any computer or computer-like device, wherever I am.
-snipped-
Except the list was specifically about the new character builder. Nice try though.
Accept the article was about the new digital directions, and the list was the benefits of moving the CB online in regards to the future of the tools as a whole.
Oh and for ultimely meaning eventually. Well, the first definition you get for it, when you look it up is:
last; furthest or farthest; ending a process or series: the ultimate point in a journey; the ultimate style in hats.
Eventually the CB will be portable where ever you go. The end of the process leads to the CB being portable.
Oh and I am sitting in an office of editors, and they said they don't know what editors you talked to, but the sentence, in context was correct. And these are editors who write textbooks for schools.
I also asked my editors friends at various Magazines, they agreed.
Simpler words than "it?" Do tell.
This is either humor, or proof about peoples ability to read. I'm going to chalk it up to humor, and agree with what editors think of people at the same time.
Also, I make no claims on being a writer.
Accept the article was about the new digital directions, and the list was the benefits of moving the CB online in regards to the future of the tools as a whole.
...
Or as one editor put it, fancy words confuse the average mind.
This is either humor, or proof about peoples ability to read. I'm going to chalk it up to humor, and agree with what editors think of people at the same time.
Also, I make no claims on being a writer.
Yeah. Those fancy words like "accept" and "except" really throw people's mind's out of whack that they just don't know how to use them properly? I call the whole story unbelievable that someone would actually be so pompous as to call in their "editor buddies" (more than one, mind you) and it was all done just to try to prove a point and especially to throw backhanded insults at people.
This is the most unimaginative baiting and trolling I have ever seen, even if the story is true.
However, there is all this that comes before:We’ll launch the new Character Builder with a known issues list and FAQ, as well as with other roadmaps to highlight launch functionality and to lay out what we plan to do with future builds of the tool. Tool by tool, we’ll use the known issues lists and FAQs to make sure that there’s as little confusion as possible about what works, what we’d like to do in the future, and what we won’t be tackling in the near term.
There are five things I really, really like about the new Character Builder.
- It’s ultimately portable. I can use it on any computer or computer-like device, wherever I am.
-snipped-
Except the list was specifically about the new character builder. Nice try though.
Accept the article was about the new digital directions, and the list was the benefits of moving the CB online in regards to the future of the tools as a whole.
Oh and for ultimely meaning eventually. Well, the first definition you get for it, when you look it up is:
last; furthest or farthest; ending a process or series: the ultimate point in a journey; the ultimate style in hats.
Eventually the CB will be portable where ever you go. The end of the process leads to the CB being portable.
Oh and I am sitting in an office of editors, and they said they don't know what editors you talked to, but the sentence, in context was correct. And these are editors who write textbooks for schools.
I also asked my editors friends at various Magazines, they agreed.
Accept the article was about the new digital directions, and the list was the benefits of moving the CB online in regards to the future of the tools as a whole.
...
Or as one editor put it, fancy words confuse the average mind.This is either humor, or proof about peoples ability to read. I'm going to chalk it up to humor, and agree with what editors think of people at the same time.
Also, I make no claims on being a writer.
Yeah. Those fancy words like "accept" and "except" really throw people's mind's out of whack that they just don't know how to use them properly? I call the whole story unbelievable that someone would actually be so pompous as to call in their "editor buddies" (more than one, mind you) and it was all done just to try to prove a point and especially to throw backhanded insults at people.This is the most unimaginative baiting and trolling I have ever seen, even if the story is true.
You do realize you are responding in support of someone who also called in their "editor buddies"?
Accept the article was about the new digital directions, and the list was the benefits of moving the CB online in regards to the future of the tools as a whole.
...
Or as one editor put it, fancy words confuse the average mind.This is either humor, or proof about peoples ability to read. I'm going to chalk it up to humor, and agree with what editors think of people at the same time.
Also, I make no claims on being a writer.
Yeah. Those fancy words like "accept" and "except" really throw people's mind's out of whack that they just don't know how to use them properly? I call the whole story unbelievable that someone would actually be so pompous as to call in their "editor buddies" (more than one, mind you) and it was all done just to try to prove a point and especially to throw backhanded insults at people.This is the most unimaginative baiting and trolling I have ever seen, even if the story is true.
You do realize you are responding in support of someone who also called in their "editor buddies"?
Again, I make no claims of being a write, and I do not send my posts out to be edited. If grammar is the only thing you have to go on, you are going to be surprised at how many professional writers make that very same mistake, and many other common mistakes when writing off the top of the head.
So, trying to cut me down because I made a common mistake, that doesn't have anything to do with knowing what the word means, doesn't hurt. There is also a term for people who do that. It's akin to people that have issues with body functions and shows a lack of maturity. I'll leave it to you to look it up, as part of a learning process.
Some of the editors I talked to are in fact friends, that I made working with professionally over the years. None of the editors in this office are my friends or buddies. I've been working for this client for 3 weeks. I just walked over at lunch and asked for a professional opinion on something.
Not to hard when you work in a textbook development studio. More editors then you could ever need. But also more opinions on the write way (pun intended) to say something.
Jharii, you have NO room to talk, as so many of your discussions end the same way.
I don't care about the argument.
I see. I had missed the implications you intended within your post the first time (I mostly was struck by the second half and overlooked the subtle tone meant to be carried by it). It didn't help that both sides have had someone comment on calling in their editor buddies.
My apologies. Do carry on.
Jharii, you have NO room to talk, as so many of your discussions end the same way.
I may be abrasive, but I most CERTAINLY do not go around insulting people, let alone groups of peole such as you are in the habit of. You are the lone exception because of your extreme narcissism.
Some of the editors I talked to are in fact friends, that I made working with professionally over the years. None of the editors in this office are my friends, or buddies. I've been working for this client for 3 weeks. I just walked over at lunch and asked for a professional opinion on something.
Not to hard when you work in a Textbook development studio. More editors then you could ever need.
Not saying that there are not excellent people who are text book editors, but having a history that grants me far more exposure to texts books than the average individual makes me to be rather underwhelmed by the claim of text book editors as support. The quality of text books vary greatly, and I have encountered some of the worst editing of my life within text books. Though, one must also realize that editing a periodical (such as the article written by Bill Slavicsek) is not exactly the same as editing a text book. Of course you and those you got the opinion of would be well aware of that already.
Jharii, you have NO room to talk, as so many of your discussions end the same way.
Wouldn't that grant him more room to point out such issues, as he typically admits when he has been in error or such an issue has been presented (at least in my posting experience of the past week or so).
EDIT: I must also agree that I have yet to see Jharii be as abrasive or dismissive of others arguements as you.
Wouldn't that grant him more room to point out such issues, as he typically admits when he has been in error or such an issue has been presented (at least in my posting experience of the past week or so).
EDIT: I must also agree that I have yet to see Jharii be as abrasive or dismissive of others arguements as you.
Thanks, Tokalla. Yeah. I've been known to be wrong. I've gotten quite good at being wrong, actually.
Just not about this.
It's not like any of you are coming over, or I will see face to face. This is something to do to pass time while checking files in and out, or waiting, or on my days off.
Simpler words than "it?" Do tell.
This is either humor, or proof about peoples ability to read. I'm going to chalk it up to humor, and agree with what editors think of people at the same time.
Also, I make no claims on being a writer.
Well it is proof about someone's ability to read, but not what you're thinking. For convenience, here's the conversation:
Did you ask the editors what else the "It" in the first point could refer to? If it meant a suite of tools, it seems more like the phrase would be "They will ultimately be portable..." not "It is ultimately portable..."
I sent them to the article and let them read it, and then asked them about the first point and what they thought. Then I told them the issue people have with it, and they just shrugged and said, that's one way of reading it, but that from the whole of the article, it's was generally agreed to what Bill was saying. That the ultimetly was being used in the way I posted.
They wouldn't have put it that way, the all said. But not because it was wrong, but because there are simplier and better words to use, and that columns like this should stay away from words that are not part of peoples every day language, because people (The editors words, not mine) generally get stuck on that which isn't readily familiar to their limited common usage vocabulary (IE, fancy talk for words they most use) and tend to put more importance on words that don't fall into that catagory.
Or as one editor put it, fancy words confuse the average mind.
But that's always been a problem with companies, they generally don't have professional editors to check things like that. And after all, it's meant to be an informal column.
I wrote a post pointing out that no matter what the meaning of ultimately was, the meaning of "it" locked in the point to refering to the character builder. In context, "it" clearly refered to the character builder. You then responded claiming that the editors would have done it differently because there are simplier (sic) and better words. Since I had been talking about the use of the word "it," I could only assume that you were also talking about the word "it" if you had read my post before responding.
I wrote a post pointing out that no matter what the meaning of ultimately was, the meaning of "it" locked in the point to refering to the character builder. In context, "it" clearly refered to the character builder. You then responded claiming that the editors would have done it differently because there are simplier (sic) and better words. Since I had been talking about the use of the word "it," I could only assume that you were also talking about the word "it" if you had read my post before responding.
For what it's worth I took Dane to be talking about "simpler words for 'ultimately'". You said "it", but he never agreed with that.
[begin speculation]
If you start from the position that all your character data is being stored in a WotC database and that the "character builder" is just an interface to that database you could collectively refer to all those interfaces as "it" because of the singular common back end DB. I'm not trying to claim this is true, but it is certainly one way to read it.
[/end speculation]
I wrote a post pointing out that no matter what the meaning of ultimately was, the meaning of "it" locked in the point to refering to the character builder. In context, "it" clearly refered to the character builder. You then responded claiming that the editors would have done it differently because there are simplier (sic) and better words. Since I had been talking about the use of the word "it," I could only assume that you were also talking about the word "it" if you had read my post before responding.
For what it's worth I took Dane to be talking about "simpler words for 'ultimately'". You said "it", but he never agreed with that.
[begin speculation]
If you start from the position that all your character data is being stored in a WotC database and that the "character builder" is just an interface to that database you could collectively refer to all those interfaces as "it" because of the singular common back end DB. I'm not trying to claim this is true, but it is certainly one way to read it.
[/end speculation]
Thanks. Since the word "ultimately" was what the subject of the conversation (at that point), it's natural to refer to the subject of the conversation with pronouns, rather then say the subject over and over.
"It depends on what your definition of the word "is" is."
I deleted my post because, really in the end I don't care, because I don't have any respect for some people on this forum, and I don't care if they don't have any for me.
For some reason, I just cannot shake the image of a zebra standing in the middle of a lake trying to wash his stripes off.
I thought we were supposed to be talking about the benefits of the character builder in this thread. And yes, I am just as guilty at contributing to the off-topic nonsense.
So... how about them sweet looking power cards?
I did do some homework on Silverlight. Mind you, I am a novice to intermediate level coder, by no means a professional. I know enough to be dangerous and I understand the concepts, just not how to implement them.
So about Silverlight... If WotC does this thing right, it's going to be pretty damn slick, and should also be pretty damn fast. I definitely understand why they went with it now. It's pretty cutting edge. It cuts out a ton of the headaches of the API communicating with the middle tier (server-side) services. Smaller, more efficient services are resident on the server, just waiting to do their job. The GUI makes small requests to the server, the server only provides what is asked of it, the GUI takes back over and calculates and displays the new/updated data.
It really appears to be a matter of time before Silverlight is integrated in most devices, and I dare say, Apple may have to swallow a little pride on this one. Hopefully, Wizards does provide us with at least some limited API functionality so we can write our own apps. The data will be protected more than sufficiently, so they should not have any problems doing so, and it would require DDI login credentials to put them to use.
Eh, we'll see. I'll cover up now. My geek is showing.
I wrote a post pointing out that no matter what the meaning of ultimately was, the meaning of "it" locked in the point to refering to the character builder. In context, "it" clearly refered to the character builder. You then responded claiming that the editors would have done it differently because there are simplier (sic) and better words. Since I had been talking about the use of the word "it," I could only assume that you were also talking about the word "it" if you had read my post before responding.
For what it's worth I took Dane to be talking about "simpler words for 'ultimately'". You said "it", but he never agreed with that.
[begin speculation]
If you start from the position that all your character data is being stored in a WotC database and that the "character builder" is just an interface to that database you could collectively refer to all those interfaces as "it" because of the singular common back end DB. I'm not trying to claim this is true, but it is certainly one way to read it.
[/end speculation]
Thanks. Since the word "ultimately" was what the subject of the conversation (at that point), it's natural to refer to the subject of the conversation with pronouns, rather then say the subject over and over.
But it was completely unrelated to the subject of my post, which you were responding to.
In comparing the new CB to the CBC:
Pros:
1. Usable on a Mac - This doesn't really affect me since all of my computers dual boot Windows/Ubuntu and my only computer-like device worth mentioning is an iPod Touch. No benefit for me, but certainly an improvement over only working in Windows.
2. Contains material from DS and HotFL - This one barely counts since that content should have been in the September and October updates for the CBC. Still, it is certainly an advantage.
Cons:
1. Cloud Storage, with a 20 character limit - This is approximately 0.0004% the storage space I have available for characters right now and around 30% of the total number of created characters I have right now. As much as they try to advertise cloud storage as a feature, that only works if it actually gives some benefit.
2. No export - This would help mitigate the 20 character limit by giving me back all the storage space I have on my hdd. They've said that export is coming, but until it does the lack of export is a con.
3. No homebrew - Yes, the CBC was limited in this, but it at least had some.
4. No multiple weapons for power cards, just main hand - This is horrible. The CBC allowed you to show power cards with all relevant weapons.
5. Only equipped weapons for basic attacks - Sorry if you wanted to see both the melee basic attack of your longsword and the ranged basic attack of your short bow. Since only one of them will equip at a time, only one of them will show on the character sheet.
6. No offline access - While I usually have internet where I use the CB, that's not always true.
7. Kills more trees - Both the Essentials and new character sheets are 3 pages (before power cards). The official 4e character sheet used by the CBC is only 2.
8. No ability to customize character sheet layout - The CBC had pretty extensive character sheet customization options. The new CB has none at all.
9. Doesn't know how much XP is required for level 12 - I had to fit this one in here. I expect and understand bugs, but not knowing the XP for level advancement is a little worse than the kind of bug I'd expect. Hopefully they fix this before launch.
So there's a pretty objective list of all the pros and a good chunk of the cons that I can think of. [opinion] It seems to me like the cons are outweighing the pros by quite a bit. In case anyone at WotC was wondering, this is why people are less than enthused about the new CB. [/opinion]
From Apple's Silverlight page (www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/developme... )
System Requirements
- Mac OS X 10.5 or later
- Mac OS 10.4.8+ (PowerPC): Silverlight 1.0 only
- 800MHz PowerPC G4 processor, 1.83GHz Intel Core Duo processor, or higher
- Apple Safari 3 or Firefox 2 or higher
- Safari 4 (Intel only)
a Nook Color (and then imagine all your books on the device too, and an random number generator and you could carry that one device with you and play anywhere...if it supported offline use).
They are going to be offering the 3G option, right? I think you'd be all set then.
IMO, other systems are going to find solutions so they can support Silverlight. I think it may just be that good.
So I'm going to (probably futilely) try to go back to the original topic: the "benefits" of the new CB.
In comparing the new CB to the CBC:
Pros:
1. Usable on a Mac - This doesn't really affect me since all of my computers dual boot Windows/Ubuntu and my only computer-like device worth mentioning is an iPod Touch. No benefit for me, but certainly an improvement over only working in Windows.
2. Contains material from DS and HotFL - This one barely counts since that content should have been in the September and October updates for the CBC. Still, it is certainly an advantage.
3. Completely transparent update process for database and client. No need to download database updates. Potentially more efficient/frequent updates. Hot fixes.
4. Consistency. All players will be accessing the same data. Minimal risk of inconsistent data (your magic missile does WHAT?!).
5. Takes up less computer resources. No installation/uninstallation.
So I'm going to (probably futilely) try to go back to the original topic: the "benefits" of the new CB.
In comparing the new CB to the CBC:
Pros:
1. Usable on a Mac - This doesn't really affect me since all of my computers dual boot Windows/Ubuntu and my only computer-like device worth mentioning is an iPod Touch. No benefit for me, but certainly an improvement over only working in Windows.
2. Contains material from DS and HotFL - This one barely counts since that content should have been in the September and October updates for the CBC. Still, it is certainly an advantage.
3. Completely transparent update process for database and client. No need to download database updates. Potentially more efficient/frequent updates. Hot fixes.
4. Consistency. All players will be accessing the same data. Minimal risk of inconsistent data (your magic missile does WHAT?!).
5. Takes up less computer resources. No installation/uninstallation.
I'll grant you that 4 and 5 are definite advantages, though I didn't think of them because they're complete non-issues for me, I guess they could help some people. 3 is debatable though, because it also implies no choice on using updates (also implied in 4, but the consistent part of it is a clear benefit).
So I'm going to (probably futilely) try to go back to the original topic: the "benefits" of the new CB.
In comparing the new CB to the CBC:
Pros:
1. Usable on a Mac - This doesn't really affect me since all of my computers dual boot Windows/Ubuntu and my only computer-like device worth mentioning is an iPod Touch. No benefit for me, but certainly an improvement over only working in Windows.
2. Contains material from DS and HotFL - This one barely counts since that content should have been in the September and October updates for the CBC. Still, it is certainly an advantage.
3. Completely transparent update process for database and client. No need to download database updates. Potentially more efficient/frequent updates. Hot fixes.
4. Consistency. All players will be accessing the same data. Minimal risk of inconsistent data (your magic missile does WHAT?!).
5. Takes up less computer resources. No installation/uninstallation.
I would put it as both a PRO and a CON:
Takes up less computer resources - that is, you are reliant upon THEIR computer resources and not yours that is under your control.
So I'm going to (probably futilely) try to go back to the original topic: the "benefits" of the new CB.
In comparing the new CB to the CBC:
Pros:
1. Usable on a Mac - This doesn't really affect me since all of my computers dual boot Windows/Ubuntu and my only computer-like device worth mentioning is an iPod Touch. No benefit for me, but certainly an improvement over only working in Windows.
2. Contains material from DS and HotFL - This one barely counts since that content should have been in the September and October updates for the CBC. Still, it is certainly an advantage.
3. Completely transparent update process for database and client. No need to download database updates. Potentially more efficient/frequent updates. Hot fixes.
4. Consistency. All players will be accessing the same data. Minimal risk of inconsistent data (your magic missile does WHAT?!).
5. Takes up less computer resources. No installation/uninstallation.
I'll grant you that 4 and 5 are definite advantages, though I didn't think of them because they're complete non-issues for me, I guess they could help some people. 3 is debatable though, because it also implies no choice on using updates (also implied in 4, but the consistent part of it is a clear benefit).
Con: Network Lag, Server Perfomance
You guys have really got to stop focusing on one line.
It's hard not to focus on one line when it's the first item in your short list of reasons to love the new program and it's flat-out wrong. Honestly, I would not be surprised to find that many people just gave up and stopped reading there. The rest only kept reading to find more problems. :D
However, there is all this that comes before:We’ll launch the new Character Builder with a known issues list and FAQ, as well as with other roadmaps to highlight launch functionality and to lay out what we plan to do with future builds of the tool. Tool by tool, we’ll use the known issues lists and FAQs to make sure that there’s as little confusion as possible about what works, what we’d like to do in the future, and what we won’t be tackling in the near term.
There are five things I really, really like about the new Character Builder.
See, by reading what comes before the list, I read that #1 is what is covered under the roadmap of future builds of the tool. In this case, Ultimately means eventually. Should it have been first? That's for each person to decide.
- It’s ultimately portable. I can use it on any computer or computer-like device, wherever I am.
- It’s both PC and Mac friendly. I can access it from either kind of machine.
- There are multiple character sheet options. I can pick an Essentials character sheet or a sheet that takes advantage of the digital medium, and we can add other versions of sheets as demand warrants.
- The user interface is better. We’ve learned a lot, tested a lot, and made a tool that is easier to navigate and use.
- Content filters are better. The D&D game is loaded with content, and the new Character Builder offers lots of ways to filter that content for you. You can make choices up front to limit the amount of information you’re bombarded with, and you can add more elements later as your play style and game mastery demands.
From their point of view, moving this to online, is the first step in solving accessablity without exspensive cross platform/device development. One source, multiple access is what I'm sure they are going for.
And please forgive me, I've read all the expert opinions about, You can't do this, or that if you use this. Since so many people on the forum are armchair programmers, with nothing to show to back up their knowledge, I'm taking all those opinions as just that, opinions. By definition, opinions don't need to be supported by facts.
My main point is that Piracy is not the main reason for this, just a piece of the puzzle. Portability wasn't even in the picture, though, even though the eventual change from Silverlight to another web programming standard will provide the portability that Silverlight simply will not ever have.
I think one of the main reason for this may have to do with bringing all the tools to interact with each other as they wanted to do when this all started. I expect the Monster Maker and the Adventure Tools to follow suit and be online, using Silverlight in the future also.
a Nook Color (and then imagine all your books on the device too, and an random number generator and you could carry that one device with you and play anywhere...if it supported offline use).
They are going to be offering the 3G option, right? I think you'd be all set then.
IMO, other systems are going to find solutions so they can support Silverlight. I think it may just be that good.
No android support for Silverlight at this time.
No books in epub or other elctronic format at this time (and really, why not? Talk about missing your audience...)
So no, you will not be set within the limits WotC has laid out for us at this time.
No android support for Silverlight at this time.
No books in epub or other elctronic format at this time (and really, why not? Talk about missing your audience...)
So no, you will not be set within the limits WotC has laid out for us at this time.
I was just adding to and sharing your fantasy of it on the Nook. Sorry I did not clarify.
You guys have really got to stop focusing on one line.
It's hard not to focus on one line when it's the first item in your short list of reasons to love the new program and it's flat-out wrong. Honestly, I would not be surprised to find that many people just gave up and stopped reading there. The rest only kept reading to find more problems. :D
However, there is all this that comes before:We’ll launch the new Character Builder with a known issues list and FAQ, as well as with other roadmaps to highlight launch functionality and to lay out what we plan to do with future builds of the tool. Tool by tool, we’ll use the known issues lists and FAQs to make sure that there’s as little confusion as possible about what works, what we’d like to do in the future, and what we won’t be tackling in the near term.
There are five things I really, really like about the new Character Builder.
See, by reading what comes before the list, I read that #1 is what is covered under the roadmap of future builds of the tool. In this case, Ultimately means eventually. Should it have been first? That's for each person to decide.
- It’s ultimately portable. I can use it on any computer or computer-like device, wherever I am.
- It’s both PC and Mac friendly. I can access it from either kind of machine.
- There are multiple character sheet options. I can pick an Essentials character sheet or a sheet that takes advantage of the digital medium, and we can add other versions of sheets as demand warrants.
- The user interface is better. We’ve learned a lot, tested a lot, and made a tool that is easier to navigate and use.
- Content filters are better. The D&D game is loaded with content, and the new Character Builder offers lots of ways to filter that content for you. You can make choices up front to limit the amount of information you’re bombarded with, and you can add more elements later as your play style and game mastery demands.
From their point of view, moving this to online, is the first step in solving accessablity without exspensive cross platform/device development. One source, multiple access is what I'm sure they are going for.
And please forgive me, I've read all the expert opinions about, You can't do this, or that if you use this. Since so many people on the forum are armchair programmers, with nothing to show to back up their knowledge, I'm taking all those opinions as just that, opinions. By definition, opinions don't need to be supported by facts.
My main point is that Piracy is not the main reason for this, just a piece of the puzzle. Portability wasn't even in the picture, though, even though the eventual change from Silverlight to another web programming standard will provide the portability that Silverlight simply will not ever have.
I think one of the main reason for this may have to do with bringing all the tools to interact with each other as they wanted to do when this all started. I expect the Monster Maker and the Adventure Tools to follow suit and be online, using Silverlight in the future also.
Then you didn't listen to the Podcast
My main point is that Piracy is not the main reason for this, just a piece of the puzzle. Portability wasn't even in the picture, though, even though the eventual change from Silverlight to another web programming standard will provide the portability that Silverlight simply will not ever have.
I think one of the main reason for this may have to do with bringing all the tools to interact with each other as they wanted to do when this all started. I expect the Monster Maker and the Adventure Tools to follow suit and be online, using Silverlight in the future also.
Like rjdafoe mentioned, in the podcast Chris Champagne basically says that Piracy is the main reason for this change. And given that the new tool is going to be so woefully deficient, Wizards felt it was more important to get the tool online and "solving" piracy than to get it to feature parity, let alone feature enhanced, compared to the classic version.
My main point is that Piracy is not the main reason for this, just a piece of the puzzle. Portability wasn't even in the picture, though, even though the eventual change from Silverlight to another web programming standard will provide the portability that Silverlight simply will not ever have.
I think one of the main reason for this may have to do with bringing all the tools to interact with each other as they wanted to do when this all started. I expect the Monster Maker and the Adventure Tools to follow suit and be online, using Silverlight in the future also.
Like rjdafoe mentioned, in the podcast Chris Champagne basically says that Piracy is the main reason for this change. And given that the new tool is going to be so woefully deficient, Wizards felt it was more important to get the tool online and "solving" piracy than to get it to feature parity, let alone feature enhanced, compared to the classic version.
Unless you can read minds we will never know the true intent on this move. Honestly I don't believe piracy is at the top of the list. They just weren't making enough money because of the people only subscribing maybe twice a year.
My main point is that Piracy is not the main reason for this, just a piece of the puzzle. Portability wasn't even in the picture, though, even though the eventual change from Silverlight to another web programming standard will provide the portability that Silverlight simply will not ever have.
I think one of the main reason for this may have to do with bringing all the tools to interact with each other as they wanted to do when this all started. I expect the Monster Maker and the Adventure Tools to follow suit and be online, using Silverlight in the future also.
Like rjdafoe mentioned, in the podcast Chris Champagne basically says that Piracy is the main reason for this change. And given that the new tool is going to be so woefully deficient, Wizards felt it was more important to get the tool online and "solving" piracy than to get it to feature parity, let alone feature enhanced, compared to the classic version.
To be perfectly fair, he said there were many reasons for the switch, then spent a lot of time talking about piracy. It was apparently an important consideration, but I'm not sure we can nail it down as the main reason. I think it was a poor choice to focus on it in the podcast though.
Intergration is the key, and the client wasn't gonna do. It was also providing some of the same fits, maybe to a lesser degree, that E-Tools was giving CMP when they tried to impliment some of the wacky rules in 3.5, like Basalt characters vs Hybrids in 4th.
This is bringing a CB that can accomidate the rules (like others already can in the market), have to have subscriber account to access, and would more easily intergrate with the rest of the tools that are to come.
Now, making this move also makes for some stepping backwards in funtionality, access (online only, not as easy for some) and the ability to save the work. (On cloud only, 20 character limit, maybe something else down the line.) It also makes the current CBC obsolete, if only in the info it has within and the rules it can accomidate.
I didn't listen to it, but I know that more than the DRM aspect of this move is motivating it. Really, Wizards wanted this from the very beginning, but chose to use the offline client becauce the Web Based CB was to limiting and didn't provide what it needed to for it to do the job required. Still doesn't in my mind, but Silverlight and this Cloud Cover thing seems to be a more intuitive structure than simply having it on the web page itself.
Intergration is the key, and the client wasn't gonna do. It was also providing some of the same fits, maybe to a lesser degree, that E-Tools was giving CMP when they tried to impliment some of the wacky rules in 3.5, like Basalt characters vs Hybrids in 4th.
This is bringing a CB that can accomidate the rules (like others already can in the market), have to have subscriber account to access, and would more easily intergrate with the rest of the tools that are to come.
Now, making this move also makes for some stepping backwards in funtionality, access (online only, not as easy for some) and the ability to save the work. (On cloud only, 20 character limit, maybe something else down the line.) It also makes the current CBC obsolete, if only in the info it has within and the rules it can accomidate
Silverlight is more than robust enough to provide a complete and fully functional solution for the CB. A web-based solution was always possible. The technology was always available. I just don't think they knew how to. They were just too new to the digital scene.
However, now with Silverlight, they can also provide a full user experience that could not otherwise be provided without downloading and installing software, plus being able to maintain the level of security over the IP that they wanted to.
You should probably listen to the podcast, though. They clear up a lot of your speculation.
Cons:
1. Cloud Storage, with a 20 character limit - This is approximately 0.0004% the storage space I have available for characters right now and around 30% of the total number of created characters I have right now. As much as they try to advertise cloud storage as a feature, that only works if it actually gives some benefit.
2. No export - This would help mitigate the 20 character limit by giving me back all the storage space I have on my hdd. They've said that export is coming, but until it does the lack of export is a con.
3. No homebrew - Yes, the CBC was limited in this, but it at least had some.
4. No multiple weapons for power cards, just main hand - This is horrible. The CBC allowed you to show power cards with all relevant weapons.
5. Only equipped weapons for basic attacks - Sorry if you wanted to see both the melee basic attack of your longsword and the ranged basic attack of your short bow. Since only one of them will equip at a time, only one of them will show on the character sheet.
6. No offline access - While I usually have internet where I use the CB, that's not always true.
7. Kills more trees - Both the Essentials and new character sheets are 3 pages (before power cards). The official 4e character sheet used by the CBC is only 2.
8. No ability to customize character sheet layout - The CBC had pretty extensive character sheet customization options. The new CB has none at all.
9. Doesn't know how much XP is required for level 12 - I had to fit this one in here. I expect and understand bugs, but not knowing the XP for level advancement is a little worse than the kind of bug I'd expect. Hopefully they fix this before launch.
10. No ability to take a "snapshot" of the capability; if whatever comes after Essentials makes changes to the basic scheme that you really don't want in your game your choices are (a) suck it up or (b) lose the ability to use the CB.
11. No legacy support built-in. Once 5E comes along (or WotC decide to kill CB support because it's not making enough money, or Hasbro decides to give D&D a "rest", or WotC is sold or goes broke, or WotC decides the price of DDI just doubled and you can't pay that, or...) your CB functionality will just evaporate overnight.
Those are, for me, the two main downsides, even though I know it's not "cool" to think further ahead than tomor...er, five minu... er, a millisecond these days.
a Nook Color (and then imagine all your books on the device too, and an random number generator and you could carry that one device with you and play anywhere...if it supported offline use).
They are going to be offering the 3G option, right? I think you'd be all set then.
IMO, other systems are going to find solutions so they can support Silverlight. I think it may just be that good.
no one is scrambling to support silverlight, most noteablity apple.
11. No legacy support built-in. Once 5E comes along (or WotC decide to kill CB support because it's not making enough money, or Hasbro decides to give D&D a "rest", or WotC is sold or goes broke, or WotC decides the price of DDI just doubled and you can't pay that, or...) your CB functionality will just evaporate overnight.
No "legacy support" needs to be built in right now. When 5E hits, all that needs to be done is to put a button for 4E Char that takes you to the old UI/functionality and another button for 5E Char that takes you to the new UI/functionality.
no one is scrambling to support silverlight, most noteablity apple.
www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/developme...
11. No legacy support built-in. Once 5E comes along (or WotC decide to kill CB support because it's not making enough money, or Hasbro decides to give D&D a "rest", or WotC is sold or goes broke, or WotC decides the price of DDI just doubled and you can't pay that, or...) your CB functionality will just evaporate overnight.
No "legacy support" needs to be built in right now. When 5E hits, all that needs to be done is to put a button for 4E Char that takes you to the old UI/functionality and another button for 5E Char that takes you to the new UI/functionality.
That:
1) Only covers the first case I mentioned, not the others (some of which I listed) that exist,
2) Runs counter to the policy adopted by WotC during previous edition changes, and
3) Requires us to trust that WotC will make a "customer first" decision when the time comes.
Excuse me if I'm holding on until I see something a little more, um, reliable.
Excuse me if I'm holding on until I see something a little more, um, reliable.
I don't disagree, but I don't think we can call it an actual "Con" until that time comes.
Excuse me if I'm holding on until I see something a little more, um, reliable.
I don't disagree, but I don't think we can call it an actual "Con" until that time comes.
Now, there I'm afraid I wholly disagree. If I have a choice of two products, and one comes with a guarantee or insurance, and the other doesn't, the one that doesn't offers me less value right now. Sure, the warranty or the insurance will only be relevant if I have some problem in the future, but there exists right now a chance that I will, in the future, have such a problem. A product without insurance against that (potential) problem should rightly be seen as less of a product than one with.
Now, there I'm afraid I wholly disagree. If I have a choice of two products, and one comes with a guarantee or insurance, and the other doesn't, the one that doesn't offers me less value right now. Sure, the warranty or the insurance will only be relevant if I have some problem in the future, but there exists right now a chance that I will, in the future, have such a problem. A product without insurance against that (potential) problem should rightly be seen as less of a product than one with.
Fine, but if we are going to create scenarios, you may as well speculate beyond that. There is not even any guarantee that Wizards will be in business in a year, two years, 5 years. Why stop there?
So add 12. The Mayans may have been right all along.
Now, there I'm afraid I wholly disagree. If I have a choice of two products, and one comes with a guarantee or insurance, and the other doesn't, the one that doesn't offers me less value right now. Sure, the warranty or the insurance will only be relevant if I have some problem in the future, but there exists right now a chance that I will, in the future, have such a problem. A product without insurance against that (potential) problem should rightly be seen as less of a product than one with.
Fine, but if we are going to create scenarios, you may as well speculate beyond that. There is not even any guarantee that Wizards will be in business in a year, two years, 5 years. Why stop there?
Sure, Wizards may go under - that was one of the scenarios I listed ("WotC goes broke"). My point is that the character builder that I am continuing to use has "legacy insurance" against this or any similar eventuality built in. Because I get to keep the application. I am perfectly aware that the easiest way for Wizards to meet my expectation is to stick with an offline character builder - but I'm willing to consider other options that (plausibly) meet the same standard. In the meantime, the lack of such "legacy insurance" is most definitely a "Con" relative to the old CB, which has it, but sadly does not have the ongoing data updates.
So add 12. The Mayans may have been right all along.
Surely that fits more with the "Pro" list, since if they were then we won't have to put up with this "service builder" lack-of-a-product for very long? ;)
Surely that fits more with the "Pro" list, since if they were then we won't have to put up with this "service builder" lack-of-a-product for very long? ;)
LOL. Thanks for understanding that I wasn't attacking you or your opinion and for seeing the humor in it.
And please forgive me, I've read all the expert opinions about, You can't do this, or that if you use this. Since so many people on the forum are armchair programmers, with nothing to show to back up their knowledge, I'm taking all those opinions as just that, opinions. By definition, opinions don't need to be supported by facts.
I don't know about these other guys, but I do it for a living. And not Visual basic against an Access database. Mult-imillion dollar 3 tier billing systems. So I have a decent idea about what's involved in a venture like this.
While not a "programmer" I think my background in WebApp Vulnerability Assessments, Penetration Testing, Digital Forensics and Network Security at least helps when I talk about the security aspect of technology.
And please forgive me, I've read all the expert opinions about, You can't do this, or that if you use this. Since so many people on the forum are armchair programmers, with nothing to show to back up their knowledge, I'm taking all those opinions as just that, opinions. By definition, opinions don't need to be supported by facts.
Been a professional programmer for 6+ years, but as you say there's no really good way to prove it. Someone on these boards called me a liar about being a programmer and because I wasn't a programmer I therefore was a troll. The real problem is only other programmers will know if you're wrong about something. Non-professionals won't have a clue.
Been a professional programmer for 6+ years, but as you say there's no really good way to prove it. Someone on these boards called me a liar about being a programmer and because I wasn't a programmer I therefore was a troll. The real problem is only other programmers will know if you're wrong about something. Non-professionals won't have a clue.
Programmer, System and Network administrator, coming up on 18 years in the industry (some of that was doing tech support for dial-up internet back in the day, but still...) And I'll mostly agree with that statement - though I'd amend it to GOOD programmers will know if you're wrong about something. I've had too many jobs cleaning up spaghetti-code projects because the original programmer didn't know what they were doing. And enterprise programming is an entirely different beast from writing a program to run on your PC.
Programmer ~15 years. 6 years of that doing security research, 7 years of that doing support of "Internet Scale" infrastructures. (writing tools to manage 15k servers at one place, and 5k servers at another). Only the security research is really googlable, but you can find my resume on LinkedIn.
So I have experience with large scale infrastruture. Creating, deploying, and maintaining web applications. System and network security. Cloud computing. I have friends that work at pretty much every major internet company you've heard of.
I don't personally have experience in Windows development. Sorry. Pretty much everyone large uses Linux, and that's what I know best.
But I do know a bit about large DBs and software as a service, and the sorts of APIs that web services need to use. And I do know that 20 characters is an idiotic limit that can not be justified on a "cost of storage" basis.
And please forgive me, I've read all the expert opinions about, You can't do this, or that if you use this. Since so many people on the forum are armchair programmers, with nothing to show to back up their knowledge, I'm taking all those opinions as just that, opinions. By definition, opinions don't need to be supported by facts.
Been a professional programmer for 6+ years, but as you say there's no really good way to prove it. Someone on these boards called me a liar about being a programmer and because I wasn't a programmer I therefore was a troll. The real problem is only other programmers will know if you're wrong about something. Non-professionals won't have a clue.
I don't really doubt when people say they are a programmer. Forums attract a lot of programmers and such, because they like computers.
I do question the position some people claim to make at their jobs. If you have all day to post while at work, I honestly can't see anyone (Im not saying this about you specifically) being that high up the food chain, more of a, here is work, do it, kind of person. And as such, I question what they say about anything.
I certainly know I'm replacable, as awesome as I am at my job. And notice, my posts are far and few between Tues-Thurs, when I work on site for a new client. Cause I have work to do. But I have no illusions as to my current standing in the food chain. And I like it like that.
I do question the position some people claim to make at their jobs. If you have all day to post while at work, I honestly can't see anyone (Im not saying this about you specifically) being that high up the food chain, more of a, here is work, do it, kind of person. And as such, I question what they say about anything.
So let me get this straight... people that have more access to a computer and have the ability to post more frequently are somehow inferior (and potentially are liars) to those that have less access to a computer and don't have the ability to post more?
Am I reading that correctly? This is the judgement being placed upon people by you?
So somehow a software support technician that is excellent at their job that can close an issue in 15 minutes is somehow inferior to a lawn maintenance specialist that has no access to a computer while at work... I am most certainly not saying one is better than the other, just presenting a scenario.
Please, feel free to correct me if I misinterpreted something, because I am completely bewildered by this claim, let alone someone would make this declaration publically.
I do question the position some people claim to make at their jobs. If you have all day to post while at work, I honestly can't see anyone (Im not saying this about you specifically) being that high up the food chain, more of a, here is work, do it, kind of person. And as such, I question what they say about anything.
So let me get this straight... people that have more access to a computer and have the ability to post more frequently are somehow inferior (and potentially are liars) to those that have less access to a computer and don't have the ability to post more?
Am I reading that correctly? This is the judgement being placed upon people by you?
So somehow a software support technician that is excellent at their job that can close an issue in 15 minutes is somehow inferior to a lawn maintenance specialist that has no access to a computer while at work... I am most certainly not saying one is better than the other, just presenting a scenario.
Please, feel free to correct me if I misinterpreted something, because I am completely bewildered by this claim, let alone someone would make this declaration publically.
yawn
Programmer, System and Network administrator, coming up on 18 years in the industry (some of that was doing tech support for dial-up internet back in the day, but still...) And I'll mostly agree with that statement - though I'd amend it to GOOD programmers will know if you're wrong about something. I've had too many jobs cleaning up spaghetti-code projects because the original programmer didn't know what they were doing. And enterprise programming is an entirely different beast from writing a program to run on your PC.
Mmmmm......spaghetti!
Edit:
10 Goto 40
20 Goto 30
30 Goto 10
40 Goto 20
Google's one way...
Programmer ~15 years. 6 years of that doing security research, 7 years of that doing support of "Internet Scale" infrastructures. (writing tools to manage 15k servers at one place, and 5k servers at another). Only the security research is really googlable, but you can find my resume on LinkedIn.
So I have experience with large scale infrastruture. Creating, deploying, and maintaining web applications. System and network security. Cloud computing. I have friends that work at pretty much every major internet company you've heard of.
I don't personally have experience in Windows development. Sorry. Pretty much everyone large uses Linux, and that's what I know best.
But I do know a bit about large DBs and software as a service, and the sorts of APIs that web services need to use. And I do know that 20 characters is an idiotic limit that can not be justified on a "cost of storage" basis.
I do application programming for a security app and am very familiar with OS APIs. From the programming perspective...I hate *NIX (no two distributions are the same so every platform has separate [low level] code to do the exact same thing - a maintenance nightmare). I have had to deal with scalability of our app and even though I don't have much web work on my resume, I can say that you're right about the limit of 20 being "ridiculous". I'd rule it as a "we want to force more people to have DDI subscriptions" move. If our group had 2 or 3 games going on I wouldn't want to have to play the DB-shuffle to get the "right" 20 PCs into the database for any given session (because you know we'll get more cool web apps as time goes on).
My main point is that Piracy is not the main reason for this, just a piece of the puzzle. Portability wasn't even in the picture, though, even though the eventual change from Silverlight to another web programming standard will provide the portability that Silverlight simply will not ever have.
I think one of the main reason for this may have to do with bringing all the tools to interact with each other as they wanted to do when this all started. I expect the Monster Maker and the Adventure Tools to follow suit and be online, using Silverlight in the future also.
Like rjdafoe mentioned, in the podcast Chris Champagne basically says that Piracy is the main reason for this change. And given that the new tool is going to be so woefully deficient, Wizards felt it was more important to get the tool online and "solving" piracy than to get it to feature parity, let alone feature enhanced, compared to the classic version.
To be perfectly fair, he said there were many reasons for the switch, then spent a lot of time talking about piracy. It was apparently an important consideration, but I'm not sure we can nail it down as the main reason. I think it was a poor choice to focus on it in the podcast though.
By making it the focus of the podcast, it was the main reason. Everything else is incidental. It also goes with the way they have been doing 4e as well.
11. No legacy support built-in. Once 5E comes along (or WotC decide to kill CB support because it's not making enough money, or Hasbro decides to give D&D a "rest", or WotC is sold or goes broke, or WotC decides the price of DDI just doubled and you can't pay that, or...) your CB functionality will just evaporate overnight.
No "legacy support" needs to be built in right now. When 5E hits, all that needs to be done is to put a button for 4E Char that takes you to the old UI/functionality and another button for 5E Char that takes you to the new UI/functionality.
But it won't happen. Everyone knows it won't happen. Just like the new CB replaces theold one immediately, 5e will replace 4e when it is released.
But it won't happen. Everyone knows it won't happen. Just like the new CB replaces theold one immediately, 5e will replace 4e when it is released.
You are more than welcome to have that opinion, but there is know way to know this with absolute certainty. And there is no way that you can say with any modicum of accuracy that everyone agrees with your opninion.
And if you DO know this with absolute certainty, you should be doing more important things than forecasting DDI's future. Maybe win yourself a lottery. Save millions of people by forecasting natural disasters. You know. Do something really meaningful with such a gift!
I didn't listen to it, but I know that more than the DRM aspect of this move is motivating it. Really, Wizards wanted this from the very beginning, but chose to use the offline client becauce the Web Based CB was to limiting and didn't provide what it needed to for it to do the job required. Still doesn't in my mind, but Silverlight and this Cloud Cover thing seems to be a more intuitive structure than simply having it on the web page itself.
Intergration is the key, and the client wasn't gonna do. It was also providing some of the same fits, maybe to a lesser degree, that E-Tools was giving CMP when they tried to impliment some of the wacky rules in 3.5, like Basalt characters vs Hybrids in 4th.
This is bringing a CB that can accomidate the rules (like others already can in the market), have to have subscriber account to access, and would more easily intergrate with the rest of the tools that are to come.
Now, making this move also makes for some stepping backwards in funtionality, access (online only, not as easy for some) and the ability to save the work. (On cloud only, 20 character limit, maybe something else down the line.) It also makes the current CBC obsolete, if only in the info it has within and the rules it can accomidate
Silverlight is more than robust enough to provide a complete and fully functional solution for the CB. A web-based solution was always possible. The technology was always available. I just don't think they knew how to. They were just too new to the digital scene.
However, now with Silverlight, they can also provide a full user experience that could not otherwise be provided without downloading and installing software, plus being able to maintain the level of security over the IP that they wanted to.
You should probably listen to the podcast, though. They clear up a lot of your speculation.
Right now Time is not On My Side.
I am sure that Microsoft had presented a very good presentation for Silverlight for it's overall functionality and how robust it can be, but what is coming is still less than what we already have. There is no disputing this.
But it won't happen. Everyone knows it won't happen. Just like the new CB replaces theold one immediately, 5e will replace 4e when it is released.
You are more than welcome to have that opinion, but there is know way to know this with absolute certainty. And there is no way that you can say with any modicum of accuracy that everyone agrees with your opninion.
And if you DO know this with absolute certainty, you should be doing more important things than forecasting DDI's future. Maybe win yourself a lottery. Save millions of people by forecasting natural disasters. You know. Do something really meaningful with such a gift!
All you have to do is look at the past. Unless there is a management change in WotC, they will continue to operate the same as they have been. Just as all support was dropped for 3.0 when 3.5 came out, and 3.5 when 4.0 came out, all support will drop from 4(.e) to 5. Even licenses for their e-tools where not renewed and the content could not be purchased.
If they had a different track record, I would think like you. If I had not been around since before 3.0 and followed waiting and waiting for support tools to come out, I would be with you. I think anyone that knows the situation would bet on my side of this.
Right now Time is not On My Side.
I am sure that Microsoft had presented a very good presentation for Silverlight for it's overall functionality and how robust it can be, but what is coming is still less than what we already have. There is no disputing this.
You don't know what is coming past the initial launch of the CB. Things evolve. There is no disputing this, either.
If you are not willing to spend a half hour with earbuds in your ears while driving, well, I don't know what else to say except that you're only willing to speculate. You only seem open to one side of the discussion, though, since you won't/can't take the time to learn more.
But it won't happen. Everyone knows it won't happen. Just like the new CB replaces theold one immediately, 5e will replace 4e when it is released.
You are more than welcome to have that opinion, but there is know way to know this with absolute certainty. And there is no way that you can say with any modicum of accuracy that everyone agrees with your opninion.
And if you DO know this with absolute certainty, you should be doing more important things than forecasting DDI's future. Maybe win yourself a lottery. Save millions of people by forecasting natural disasters. You know. Do something really meaningful with such a gift!
All you have to do is look at the past. Unless there is a management change in WotC, they will continue to operate the same as they have been. Just as all support was dropped for 3.0 when 3.5 came out, and 3.5 when 4.0 came out, all support will drop from 4(.e) to 5. Even licenses for their e-tools where not renewed and the content could not be purchased.
If they had a different track record, I would think like you. If I had not been around since before 3.0 and followed waiting and waiting for support tools to come out, I would be with you. I think anyone that knows the situation would bet on my side of this.
Let's see... 2nd edition character thingy, to "Master Tools" downgraded to "E-Tools" which had to be fixed by a third party after Fluid showed how bad they were at anything at all, CMP getting ready to switch over to RPG Toolkit when licensed yanked (Why not use/buy the work CMP was doing for the next tool for the new edition?), wanted a web page generator and had to use an Offline client, now there is Silverlight to "save the day" and have web based data base (called a Cloud Mist?) while using a client interface (GUI?) that will be, "at first," with less features and only be able to save to the Cloud City instead of being able to save on you own computer.
Yeah, they are batting 1000.
Right now Time is not On My Side.
I am sure that Microsoft had presented a very good presentation for Silverlight for it's overall functionality and how robust it can be, but what is coming is still less than what we already have. There is no disputing this.
You don't know what is coming past the initial launch of the CB. Things evolve. There is no disputing this, either.
If you are not willing to spend a half hour with earbuds in your ears while driving, well, I don't know what else to say except that you're only willing to speculate. You only seem open to one side of the discussion, though, since you won't/can't take the time to learn more.
I will listen to the podcast sometime this weekend, after work, but I doubt that I will be impressed.
All you have to do is look at the past.
Yep. You look to the past to learn from your mistakes. They already got out from under the 3rd party problems. They moved forward on their own and learned much more firsthand. This new direction is a result of learning from that first venture into their own digital solution.
You're more than welcome to dwell on the negativity, however. I choose not to.
I will listen to the podcast sometime this weekend, after work, but I doubt that I will be impressed.
I don't remember the last time you were. But it's all good. But try to listen beyond the words, too. They sound like a motivated bunch that really likes what DDI has in store for everyone.
I see a plethora of possibilities.
6. Works on any computer with Silverlight instead of just those computers that you own and have it installed on (not everyone owns a laptop they can take with them - also you weren't supposed to use your sub to install it on your friends PC, though many did - violating the ToS).
Most computers (owners) won't let you download and install random programs like Silverlight on their computers so the portability is really not as good as they say...
I didn't listen to it, but I know that more than the DRM aspect of this move is motivating it. Really, Wizards wanted this from the very beginning, but chose to use the offline client becauce the Web Based CB was to limiting and didn't provide what it needed to for it to do the job required. Still doesn't in my mind, but Silverlight and this Cloud Cover thing seems to be a more intuitive structure than simply having it on the web page itself.
Intergration is the key, and the client wasn't gonna do. It was also providing some of the same fits, maybe to a lesser degree, that E-Tools was giving CMP when they tried to impliment some of the wacky rules in 3.5, like Basalt characters vs Hybrids in 4th.
This is bringing a CB that can accomidate the rules (like others already can in the market), have to have subscriber account to access, and would more easily intergrate with the rest of the tools that are to come.
Now, making this move also makes for some stepping backwards in funtionality, access (online only, not as easy for some) and the ability to save the work. (On cloud only, 20 character limit, maybe something else down the line.) It also makes the current CBC obsolete, if only in the info it has within and the rules it can accomidate
Silverlight is more than robust enough to provide a complete and fully functional solution for the CB. A web-based solution was always possible. The technology was always available. I just don't think they knew how to. They were just too new to the digital scene.
However, now with Silverlight, they can also provide a full user experience that could not otherwise be provided without downloading and installing software, plus being able to maintain the level of security over the IP that they wanted to.
You should probably listen to the podcast, though. They clear up a lot of your speculation.
Let me clear up some of your speculation first. Silverlight is an app that you have to download and install, after you've done that you may use tools like the character builder, but you still have a download that is not small and you have to have admin rights to install it, so the portability is even less...
11. No legacy support built-in. Once 5E comes along (or WotC decide to kill CB support because it's not making enough money, or Hasbro decides to give D&D a "rest", or WotC is sold or goes broke, or WotC decides the price of DDI just doubled and you can't pay that, or...) your CB functionality will just evaporate overnight.
No "legacy support" needs to be built in right now. When 5E hits, all that needs to be done is to put a button for 4E Char that takes you to the old UI/functionality and another button for 5E Char that takes you to the new UI/functionality.
We can speculate all day, but from past experience WotC has stopped supporting previous editions. There is no reason to think they won't stop supporting 4E when the time comes...
no one is scrambling to support silverlight, most noteablity apple.
www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/developme...
Hes talking about in reference to the iPad or iPhone or McMobile or whatever they are planning...
Most computers (owners) won't let you download and install random programs like Silverlight on their computers so the portability is really not as good as they say...
lolwut? Silverlight is a "random" program? That's pretty funny, but saves me from having to read your other "insight."
Most computers (owners) won't let you download and install random programs like Silverlight on their computers so the portability is really not as good as they say...
lolwut? Silverlight is a "random" program? That's pretty funny, but saves me from having to read your other "insight."
Well, if you see Silverlight as oh so essential, could you name a few killer apps that run on Silverlight? With such useful (and apparantly obvious) information we can petition Internet cafe's and libraries to hurry up and install this life changing application framework.
lolwut, indeed.
Most computers (owners) won't let you download and install random programs like Silverlight on their computers so the portability is really not as good as they say...
lolwut? Silverlight is a "random" program? That's pretty funny, but saves me from having to read your other "insight."
Funny, I was thinking more along the lines of....my original comment already included his gripe..."Works on any computer with Silverlight..." - emphasis mine. Mostly I was thinking about all your gaming friends and their computers because you know....you might actually be gaming there or something.
Well, if you see Silverlight as oh so essential, could you name a few killer apps that run on Silverlight? With such useful (and apparantly obvious) information we can petition Internet cafe's and libraries to hurry up and install this life changing application framework.
lolwut, indeed.
Your argument makes no sense. Do the same for Flash. You can't. I doubt you can name any "killer app" that runs in any browser add-on. It's almost as if you don't understand what you are asking and that you don't understand what Silverlight is.
Curious, though. Do any of those internet cafes and libraries have the old character builder installed for you? My chips are on "No." I'll be that they install Silverlight well before they install the CB, though.
But please, provide me with some contact information of some internet cafes and libraries that don't have it installed. I'll be more than happy to contact them for you. I am sure that they will have no issues with installing a Microsoft add-on that is perfectly safe and offers excellent functionality. Chances are they already have it anyhow, considering that Microsoft sites use it quite liberally.
Here, maybe you should do a little research and check out some of the apps that are out there already: www.silverlight.net/showcase/.
All you have to do is look at the past.
Yep. You look to the past to learn from your mistakes. They already got out from under the 3rd party problems. They moved forward on their own and learned much more firsthand. This new direction is a result of learning from that first venture into their own digital solution.
:ROFL:
You're absolutely right - there is no definitive proof that the leopard can't change its spots. You just keep watching that leopard - those spots could change any time, now.
You're more than welcome to dwell on the negativity, however. I choose not to.
Is it really "negativity" when every bit of evidence there is points one way? Sure, the evidence does not constitute conclusive proof of future actions - and it never could - but blithely planning on something that runs counter to all the available evidence seems... ill-judged, to me.
Edit: I do agree, on the other hand, that "it needs Silverlight to run - no way that will fly!" is a red herring. MS standard stuff should get pretty ubiquitous pretty soon - and CB"c" required .Net framework.
Is it really "negativity" when every bit of evidence there is points one way? Sure, the evidence does not constitute conclusive proof of future actions - and it never could - but blithely planning on something that runs counter to all the available evidence seems... ill-judged, to me.
Opinion and conjecture do not equate to evidence, no matter how adamant and condescending the opinion.
Is it really "negativity" when every bit of evidence there is points one way? Sure, the evidence does not constitute conclusive proof of future actions - and it never could - but blithely planning on something that runs counter to all the available evidence seems... ill-judged, to me.
Opinion and conjecture do not equate to evidence, no matter how adamant and condescending the opinion.
OK, look - spin it how you like in your own mind, but what I'm talking about is:
- Changed from 2E to 3E; Core Rules support ceased forthwith.
- Changed from 3.X to 4E; e-Tools support ceased forthwith.
- Changed from offline 4E CB to web-only 4E CB; offline tool support ceased forthwith.
Might they do it differently next time? Yeah, they might. But I'm not holding my breath.
Leaving no easy route to "opt out" if the design path starts going somewhere you don't like is a an attractive proposition for Wizards - and one they haven't passed up, yet.
OK, look - spin it how you like in your own mind, but what I'm talking about is:
- Changed from 2E to 3E; Core Rules support ceased forthwith.
- Changed from 3.X to 4E; e-Tools support ceased forthwith.
- Changed from offline 4E CB to web-only 4E CB; offline tool support ceased forthwith.
Might they do it differently next time? Yeah, they might. But I'm not holding my breath.
A pattern of behavior is not considered evidence, but does go to establish credibility. This I have no dispute over. But they are taking strides to improve their credibility as well. It's only fair to recognize this.
But the bolded part is all that is really needed in this discussion. Thank you for recognizing that people can have varying opinions on the subject, that the outcome may not be as you expect it to be, and that it is not all a cut and dry topic.
Is it really "negativity" when every bit of evidence there is points one way? Sure, the evidence does not constitute conclusive proof of future actions - and it never could - but blithely planning on something that runs counter to all the available evidence seems... ill-judged, to me.
Opinion and conjecture do not equate to evidence, no matter how adamant and condescending the opinion.
OK, look - spin it how you like in your own mind, but what I'm talking about is:
- Changed from 2E to 3E; Core Rules support ceased forthwith.
- Changed from 3.X to 4E; e-Tools support ceased forthwith.
- Changed from offline 4E CB to web-only 4E CB; offline tool support ceased forthwith.
Might they do it differently next time? Yeah, they might. But I'm not holding my breath.
Leaving no easy route to "opt out" if the design path starts going somewhere you don't like is a an attractive proposition for Wizards - and one they haven't passed up, yet.
Well, I think it's understandable that they stop supporting previous editions. They certainly put out a lot of material for each edition. And it is a game that fully encourages making up your own stuff.
As for the 4E tools. This was how they originally wanted the CB, to be online. Along with all the other tools, they failed to come out with.
So the stand alone was an attempt to try and deliver on their first failed promise. Now it seems they have a second chance to make good on the original vision.
The other thing to consider, this is costing WoTC, and Hasbro millions to develop. I would think they would want to keep 4E longer then people suspect. Just a guess.
A pattern of behavior is not considered evidence, but does go to establish credibility. This I have no dispute over.
In a court of law, maybe, but for me making decisions about my future behaviour it's all the evidence I have. And shifting to a format that removes the only remaining "safety net" should they not turn out to be as reformed as we hope they will be does nothing to establish enhanced credibility, in my eyes.
But they are taking strides to improve their credibility as well. It's only fair to recognize this.
Thanks for pointing this out - I must have missed it. All I see so far is some effort to communicate a little more without any pause over the customer disquiet at the general direction. As far as I see it, WotC have promised precisely nothing regarding continuity of access if, for any reason, they should decide next month to simply abandon the character builder. They have offered no affirmation at all (let along a credible one) that there is any committment in the Corporate heirarchy to make this functionality available for one second longer than they feel they will keep benefitting from it. Under that scenario, I see no reason to invest one penny in the new tool whatsoever.
But the bolded part is all that is really needed in this discussion. Thank you for recognizing that people can have varying opinions on the subject, that the outcome may not be as you expect it to be, and that it is not all a cut and dry topic.
Sure - if you feel you have a basis to trust WotC/Hasbro go ahead. I will actually trust them with certain things - but their track record in this area is a long way from what would encourage me to trust them with no "safety net" of an app I have on my computer.
Well, I think it's understandable that they stop supporting previous editions. They certainly put out a lot of material for each edition. And it is a game that fully encourages making up your own stuff.
I understand that they want to stop working on previous editions - that makes perfect sense - and is fair. What I object to is the attempt to put pressure to buy the new edition by cutting off access to the tools developed (and sold) to support the earlier edition. They actually haven't stooped this low, before.
As for the 4E tools. This was how they originally wanted the CB, to be online. Along with all the other tools, they failed to come out with.
So the stand alone was an attempt to try and deliver on their first failed promise. Now it seems they have a second chance to make good on the original vision.
Yeah, I can see that if you wanted/expected a web-app for this functionality with 4E this would be an advance for you. I, on the other hand, spoke out against an on-line solution before the original CB was released. I was delighted when the offline version was announced - I thought they had actually wised up and made the right decision. It was a major factor in me subscribing to DDI in the first place - and I subscribed from that announcement until last Saturday without a break.
The other thing to consider, this is costing WoTC, and Hasbro millions to develop. I would think they would want to keep 4E longer then people suspect. Just a guess.
I would be amazed if the CB alone was millions - a few hundred thou, more likely - but the point remains, it's an investment for them, sure. But that doesn't change the fact that, either when they see an advantage to doing so for themselves or when circumstances beyond their control dictate, a web-based tool will suddenly and irrevocably become unavailable to all its users. The users themselves will have no say in this.
Furthermore, when the design direction takes a turn, users that don't like the new direction will have no option to "opt out" if they want to keep the CB available to them. That's a disenfranchisement I have a great distaste for, as a customer.
In a court of law, maybe, but for me making decisions about my future behaviour it's all the evidence I have. And shifting to a format that removes the only remaining "safety net" should they not turn out to be as reformed as we hope they will be does nothing to establish enhanced credibility, in my eyes.
Again, thank you for pointing out that this is your opinion and that "everyone" does not share in this or view it as evidence.
I realize that you did not claim "everyone" agrees with you, but this immediate discussion is an extension of that initial claim. My apologies for not recognizing that separation sooner. I do respect and appreciate your contribution to this discussion.
Thanks for pointing this out - I must have missed it. All I see so far is some effort to communicate a little more without any pause over the customer disquiet at the general direction. As far as I see it, WotC have promised precisely nothing regarding continuity of access if, for any reason, they should decide next month to simply abandon the character builder. They have offered no affirmation at all (let along a credible one) that there is any committment in the Corporate heirarchy to make this functionality available for one second longer than they feel they will keep benefitting from it. Under that scenario, I see no reason to invest one penny in the new tool whatsoever.
All journeys begin with the first step. Only you can judge for yourself if you feel that they have taken it, I suppose.
Thanks for pointing this out - I must have missed it. All I see so far is some effort to communicate a little more without any pause over the customer disquiet at the general direction. As far as I see it, WotC have promised precisely nothing regarding continuity of access if, for any reason, they should decide next month to simply abandon the character builder. They have offered no affirmation at all (let along a credible one) that there is any committment in the Corporate heirarchy to make this functionality available for one second longer than they feel they will keep benefitting from it. Under that scenario, I see no reason to invest one penny in the new tool whatsoever.
All journeys begin with the first step. Only you can judge for yourself if you feel that they have taken it, I suppose.
I would be really appreciative if you would explain what basis you have for believing that they have changed their outlook on this one iota - I honestly see none. All I see is a few marketing posts by Trevor to try to show how "cool" the new CB will be. There are no undertakings, promises or even remarks about plans or intentions for support when the web-CB is closed out - nor any undertakings about how long it will be maintained. If you can point me to one indication that they intend anything but a hard dump whenever they feel inclined I might acquire at least some optimism.
The other thing to consider, this is costing WoTC, and Hasbro millions to develop. I would think they would want to keep 4E longer then people suspect. Just a guess.
I would be amazed if the CB alone was millions - a few hundred thou, more likely - but the point remains, it's an investment for them, sure. But that doesn't change the fact that, either when they see an advantage to doing so for themselves or when circumstances beyond their control dictate, a web-based tool will suddenly and irrevocably become unavailable to all its users. The users themselves will have no say in this.
Furthermore, when the design direction takes a turn, users that don't like the new direction will have no option to "opt out" if they want to keep the CB available to them. That's a disenfranchisement I have a great distaste for, as a customer.
I was thinking total cost when I said millions. They got pretty far on things like the VTT and CB when it wall went up in flames. Because, yes, the CB alone didn't cost millions. So there was a lot of money they spent before anything was released, that didn't make any money back for them.
Well, people get flipped out about change, bad or good. If it had been the other way around, a move from online to offline, people would complain about that. Probably saying that it was the end of 4E, because that makes it easier to stop supporting it, or that now they have to update it, rather then having the updates appear without having to do anything.
The thing is, DnD is still a niche game and RPG is still a niche market, especially this kind. Card games, video games, are all much easier to set up and play. I mean when you talk about these kinds of games with people that don't play them, they only think of DnD, they probably don't know anything about Pathfinder, Shadowrun, Gamma World, or GRUPS. They just lump it all as DnD.
As such, they can't really support two kinds of Character Builders that do the same thing. There just isn't enough money being made for that.
I think that moving online will prove to be a good move, even if it upset people, if they can finally achieve the original plan. I'm betting that for everything to come together in the VTT, having it online, in their database/cloud is going to make it a lot easier and faster and workable.
The upside is that if you don't use the VTT, you can still use all the other tools to make your game better. Sure, you could do all that offline. But again, having to do the same work twice, and at an increased cost? WoTC just doesn't make that kind of money.
I would be really appreciative if you would explain what basis you have for believing that they have changed their outlook on this one iota - I honestly see none. All I see is a few marketing posts by Trevor to try to show how "cool" the new CB will be. There are no undertakings, promises or even remarks about plans or intentions for support when the web-CB is closed out - nor any undertakings about how long it will be maintained. If you can point me to one indication that they intend anything but a hard dump whenever they feel inclined I might acquire at least some optimism.
Their initiation in making efforts to opening the lines of communication with the community is always an excellent first step. And this has been more than just showing off the "kewl phat lewt."
The other thing to consider, this is costing WoTC, and Hasbro millions to develop. I would think they would want to keep 4E longer then people suspect. Just a guess.
I would be amazed if the CB alone was millions - a few hundred thou, more likely - but the point remains, it's an investment for them, sure. But that doesn't change the fact that, either when they see an advantage to doing so for themselves or when circumstances beyond their control dictate, a web-based tool will suddenly and irrevocably become unavailable to all its users. The users themselves will have no say in this.
Furthermore, when the design direction takes a turn, users that don't like the new direction will have no option to "opt out" if they want to keep the CB available to them. That's a disenfranchisement I have a great distaste for, as a customer.
I was thinking total cost when I said millions. They got pretty far on things like the VTT and CB when it wall went up in flames. Because, yes, the CB alone didn't cost millions. So there was a lot of money they spent before anything was released, that didn't make any money back for them.
We will never know how much they actually spent on that - but that would have almost no impact on their decisions go go forward or terminate the project when it comes time to make that decision. Those are what are known as sunk costs - that money has already been paid and cannot be recovered. When doing forward looking planning you pretty much never consider sunk costs.
When 5e comes out it will be a simple decision for WotC to cut all support for the online 4e tools (in fact they will probably silently cut development on 4e tools well ahead of announcing 5e so they can shift development to 5e tools). Quite simply, the amount of $money they make providing 4e tools is insignificant compared to what they will make selling you the new 5e books - and if they think killing the 4e tools will make you move to 5e sooner then that is exactly what they will do.
The other thing to consider, this is costing WoTC, and Hasbro millions to develop. I would think they would want to keep 4E longer then people suspect. Just a guess.
I would be amazed if the CB alone was millions - a few hundred thou, more likely - but the point remains, it's an investment for them, sure. But that doesn't change the fact that, either when they see an advantage to doing so for themselves or when circumstances beyond their control dictate, a web-based tool will suddenly and irrevocably become unavailable to all its users. The users themselves will have no say in this.
Furthermore, when the design direction takes a turn, users that don't like the new direction will have no option to "opt out" if they want to keep the CB available to them. That's a disenfranchisement I have a great distaste for, as a customer.
I was thinking total cost when I said millions. They got pretty far on things like the VTT and CB when it wall went up in flames. Because, yes, the CB alone didn't cost millions. So there was a lot of money they spent before anything was released, that didn't make any money back for them.
We will never know how much they actually spent on that - but that would have almost no impact on their decisions go go forward or terminate the project when it comes time to make that decision. Those are what are known as sunk costs - that money has already been paid and cannot be recovered. When doing forward looking planning you pretty much never consider sunk costs.
When 5e comes out it will be a simple decision for WotC to cut all support for the online 4e tools (in fact they will probably silently cut development on 4e tools well ahead of announcing 5e so they can shift development to 5e tools). Quite simply, the amount of $money they make providing 4e tools is insignificant compared to what they will make selling you the new 5e books - and if they think killing the 4e tools will make you move to 5e sooner then that is exactly what they will do.
I disagree. Having spent money, however much, and failing to come out with a product has an impact on future projects, that are similar. If it was simply WoTC by it's self, they could make their own call. But since they are owned by Hasbro, and are a publically traded company, there is more to consider.
One thing to consider, projects like this are funded by the company borrowing money from banks. They still have to pay that money back, at interest regardless of what happens.
That means that WoTC/Hasbro had to figure out where to take money from to pay it back.
If we are going to get the original plan for DDi, we aren't going to see all of it for at least 1-2 years. Then it's at least a few years of making money from that, before it platues, or sales drop. I would say 4e has at least 4-5 more years before they really shift focus to a 5E game.
What I think we are seeing is the new model. Boardgames and DnD like spin offs. I doubt we'll see a pure card game DnD, that competes with Magic.
If anything, I could easily see DnD becoming solely online.
I was thinking total cost when I said millions. They got pretty far on things like the VTT and CB when it wall went up in flames. Because, yes, the CB alone didn't cost millions. So there was a lot of money they spent before anything was released, that didn't make any money back for them.
Oh, OK - gotcha. Yes, the whole aborted suite thing must have stung.
Well, people get flipped out about change, bad or good. If it had been the other way around, a move from online to offline, people would complain about that. Probably saying that it was the end of 4E, because that makes it easier to stop supporting it, or that now they have to update it, rather then having the updates appear without having to do anything.
Heh - yep, you're probably right, there.
As such, they can't really support two kinds of Character Builders that do the same thing. There just isn't enough money being made for that.
Agreed - but they wouldn't have to. Still don't - all they need to do is undertake to release a functional offline version (that will not get updated) when they cease support. I don't expect ongoing development after the tools commercial life is over - I just want to be able to continue using it when I play a "legacy" game.
I think that moving online will prove to be a good move, even if it upset people, if they can finally achieve the original plan. I'm betting that for everything to come together in the VTT, having it online, in their database/cloud is going to make it a lot easier and faster and workable.
Oh, you think that an online CB is neccessary for a VTT/mapping/campaign tool suite? I guess I'll just beg to differ. If .jpg and .png maps can't be loaded into the VTT it loses lots of usefulness - and if they can be then .dnd4E files could be loaded there, too.
The upside is that if you don't use the VTT, you can still use all the other tools to make your game better. Sure, you could do all that offline. But again, having to do the same work twice, and at an increased cost? WoTC just doesn't make that kind of money.
Again, I don't see this as a technical limitation. If the CB will run on a server it will run on my PC just as well. The reason for no offline capability is not a technical limitation - it's just a wish to keep all the data server-side. I actually think that releasing the application (for sale) would be a good move - but WotC clearly don't share this view (which they are entitled not to do). The issue I have as a customer is that this leaves me with no "legacy option". Maybe if they undertook to release the last version of the application for offline use after the support for it ended I would have most of what I'm looking for, but I see no interest in this from them, so far.
I was thinking total cost when I said millions. They got pretty far on things like the VTT and CB when it wall went up in flames. Because, yes, the CB alone didn't cost millions. So there was a lot of money they spent before anything was released, that didn't make any money back for them.
Oh, OK - gotcha. Yes, the whole aborted suite thing must have stung.Well, people get flipped out about change, bad or good. If it had been the other way around, a move from online to offline, people would complain about that. Probably saying that it was the end of 4E, because that makes it easier to stop supporting it, or that now they have to update it, rather then having the updates appear without having to do anything.
Heh - yep, you're probably right, there.As such, they can't really support two kinds of Character Builders that do the same thing. There just isn't enough money being made for that.
Agreed - but they wouldn't have to. Still don't - all they need to do is undertake to release a functional offline version (that will not get updated) when they cease support. I don't expect ongoing development after the tools commercial life is over - I just want to be able to continue using it when I play a "legacy" game.I think that moving online will prove to be a good move, even if it upset people, if they can finally achieve the original plan. I'm betting that for everything to come together in the VTT, having it online, in their database/cloud is going to make it a lot easier and faster and workable.
Oh, you think that an online CB is neccessary for a VTT/mapping/campaign tool suite? I guess I'll just beg to differ. If .jpg and .png maps can't be loaded into the VTT it loses lots of usefulness - and if they can be then .dnd4E files could be loaded there, too.The upside is that if you don't use the VTT, you can still use all the other tools to make your game better. Sure, you could do all that offline. But again, having to do the same work twice, and at an increased cost? WoTC just doesn't make that kind of money.
Again, I don't see this as a technical limitation. If the CB will run on a server it will run on my PC just as well. The reason for no offline capability is not a technical limitation - it's just a wish to keep all the data server-side. I actually think that releasing the application (for sale) would be a good move - but WotC clearly don't share this view (which they are entitled not to do). The issue I have as a customer is that this leaves me with no "legacy option". Maybe if they undertook to release the last version of the application for offline use after the support for it ended I would have most of what I'm looking for, but I see no interest in this from them, so far.
Will anyone read a post this long? LOL.
You will still be able to use the old stand alone CB afte the 16th. They won't update, but it will still work, and you can still use it. However, if you have a crash or it gets corrupted or whatever, you won't be able to reinstall it. Perhaps they might reconsider that at some point. Doubt it. So treat it like the precious child it is. That's your legacy option.
They are going to quickly introduce an export feature, which I take to mean that you can export your online Characters to your offline software.
I do think that about the CB being online, because they said that was one of the reasons to do this. At some point I suspect that a map making tool, using the tile art will be available. There will also be the option to draw your maps, at least that's what they once showed.
As for uploading your own images. Who knows? It's too early to speculate. I would certainly like the option to upload artwork for character sheet pictures. Or even the ability to design my own Character sheets.
To me, DnD seems to be in an unusal spot, marketing wise. While other smaller game companies might not have an issue with pirated copies, because it gets people interested in their game, that doesn't work with WoTC, as if you are into gaming or not, chances are you've heard of DnD, and have some understanding of what it's about.
However, DnD is still niche. Where the record companies claim that copies and napster hurt them, but can show no evidence of such, piracy probably does hurt WoTC. When you have tens of thousands of your PDFs being sold and you get nothing, that's a lot of money for a company like WoTC.
To big to need to get players by piracy, not big enough were piracy doesn't hurt.
To me, DnD seems to be in an unusal spot, marketing wise. While other smaller game companies might not have an issue with pirated copies, because it gets people interested in their game, that doesn't work with WoTC, as if you are into gaming or not, chances are you've heard of DnD, and have some understanding of what it's about.
I am not sure if you are talking about D&D in general or the digital venture, but...
To me, D&D has always had a disjunction between their paper product and their software product. Whether it was putting 3rd party developers to work or their taking it on themselves, the talent needed to match up with the vision was just never on par with each other. It appears that the talent in the digital solution is starting to catch up to the paper. They have a ways to go, obviously.
I just think this was initially an attempt to stay true to the "hard core" D&D population, and once they realized that a digital solution was really necessary (to appease their customers), they jumped on board. It's been a game of catch-up since.
Thus, I agree that your assessment earlier that the lifespan of 4E is going to be a lot longer than what others may perceive. I think that Wizards wants the two products to be on par with each other before they get ready to strike with 5E.
I disagree. Having spent money, however much, and failing to come out with a product has an impact on future projects, that are similar. If it was simply WoTC by it's self, they could make their own call. But since they are owned by Hasbro, and are a publically traded company, there is more to consider.
It does have an effect on future products, only in that it makes them less likely to risk as much going forward - but it has no effect on deciding what to do with current products. You look at ongoing costs and projections when deciding what to do with current projects.
One thing to consider, projects like this are funded by the company borrowing money from banks. They still have to pay that money back, at interest regardless of what happens.
That means that WoTC/Hasbro had to figure out where to take money from to pay it back.
Actually if you take a quick look as Hasbro's financial statements you would realize that something like the VTT try was something they could simply fund it out of pocket. Somebody convinced the executives that this could become as big as some MMOs and they decided to try for it. The project didn't pan out so they wrote it off as product development expense (for example, hasbro spent almost $52 million just last quarter on product development)
If we are going to get the original plan for DDi, we aren't going to see all of it for at least 1-2 years. Then it's at least a few years of making money from that, before it platues, or sales drop. I would say 4e has at least 4-5 more years before they really shift focus to a 5E game.
Unless DDi starts making a whole lot more money it is quite simply not going to factor in to when they decide to make a shift from 4e to 5e. To put it quite simply, they make a LOT more money on selling books than they do selling DDi subscriptions. If the PnP side decides it is time to go to 5e, they are not going to give 4e DDi a second thought.
What I think we are seeing is the new model. Boardgames and DnD like spin offs. I doubt we'll see a pure card game DnD, that competes with Magic.
If anything, I could easily see DnD becoming solely online.
Not any time soon you won't. DnD won't become a solely online game until they are no longer making money from the PnP side - and it won't even be primarily an online game until they start making more money online than they do from the PnP side. As long as the books make more money, the books will control the way the business goes.
You don't know what is coming past the initial launch of the CB. Things evolve. There is no disputing this, either.
If you are not willing to spend a half hour with earbuds in your ears while driving, well, I don't know what else to say except that you're only willing to speculate. You only seem open to one side of the discussion, though, since you won't/can't take the time to learn more.
All you can really count on is whats in it day one. more functionality might come day 10 or day 100. The problem folks have is that the digital group makes lots of promises but rarely follows through with them.
Virtual Table Top
Figure builder
Campaign Tools (not tool)
Updates/fixs to the monster builder
Dark Sun & Essentials updates to CBC
We've heard so much comming soon that most of us think Duke Nukem Forever will be released before the export function.
Not any time soon you won't. DnD won't become a solely online game until they are no longer making money from the PnP side - and it won't even be primarily an online game until they start making more money online than they do from the PnP side. As long as the books make more money, the books will control the way the business goes.
The books seem more intended to rope you into the online component these days. I said it back before 4E was reduced. They want a MMO income.
All you have to do is look at the past.
Yep. You look to the past to learn from your mistakes. They already got out from under the 3rd party problems. They moved forward on their own and learned much more firsthand. This new direction is a result of learning from that first venture into their own digital solution.
You're more than welcome to dwell on the negativity, however. I choose not to.
You got to prove it. They said they learned from their mistakes with 3.x.
The new direction is nothing more than to stop cracked Character Builder from being above WotC's legit character builder when you do a Google search.
Most computers (owners) won't let you download and install random programs like Silverlight on their computers so the portability is really not as good as they say...
lolwut? Silverlight is a "random" program? That's pretty funny, but saves me from having to read your other "insight."
He is not talking about Silverlight I don't think. He is talking about the Silverlight WotC application. Yes, you have to install an application. Think of Silverlight as the .NET 3.5 of the "classic" CB
Is it really "negativity" when every bit of evidence there is points one way? Sure, the evidence does not constitute conclusive proof of future actions - and it never could - but blithely planning on something that runs counter to all the available evidence seems... ill-judged, to me.
Opinion and conjecture do not equate to evidence, no matter how adamant and condescending the opinion.
OK, look - spin it how you like in your own mind, but what I'm talking about is:
- Changed from 2E to 3E; Core Rules support ceased forthwith.
- Changed from 3.X to 4E; e-Tools support ceased forthwith.
- Changed from offline 4E CB to web-only 4E CB; offline tool support ceased forthwith.
Might they do it differently next time? Yeah, they might. But I'm not holding my breath.
Leaving no easy route to "opt out" if the design path starts going somewhere you don't like is a an attractive proposition for Wizards - and one they haven't passed up, yet.
Well, I think it's understandable that they stop supporting previous editions. They certainly put out a lot of material for each edition. And it is a game that fully encourages making up your own stuff.
As for the 4E tools. This was how they originally wanted the CB, to be online. Along with all the other tools, they failed to come out with.
So the stand alone was an attempt to try and deliver on their first failed promise. Now it seems they have a second chance to make good on the original vision.
The other thing to consider, this is costing WoTC, and Hasbro millions to develop. I would think they would want to keep 4E longer then people suspect. Just a guess.
No one is saying they should support it. the other programs did not cease to function when the new edition came out. This new CB, in all liklyhood, by past behavior, will not support 4e when 5e comes out.
If you want to continue to play 4e, you lose the CB. That DID NOT happen before.
Compared to say, 4e player's handbook, which is the 2nd site down the list. The rest are mostly wiki links and 'pre-4e PHB' that was done before the game came out. Oddly amazon's link to buy the book is the 6th site, and Wizard's own page is the 7th.
So much effort to defend the CB, while the books are just as pirated.
Also, completely agree with above poster.
I googled 4E Character Builder and torrents only appear at the bottom and following pages.
Compared to say, 4e player's handbook, which is the 2nd site down the list.
Also, completely agree with above poster.
If you listen to the podcast that is what the guy said. That torrents appeared before theirs basically.
Compared to their books which DO get torrents before their official links.
If you red my post, the torrents aren't when i google it, wizard's link is actually #1, and the rest are reviews/peoples own creations.
Compared to their books which DO get torrents before their official links.
I know what you said. I am just telling you what the DDI Studio guy said on the podcast. Almost the entire CB section of the podcast was about protecting their content. The customer that subscribes was just an aside - not really the primary focus.
However, the same thing he said in the podcast is true about all their other products. It seems silly that they are doing all this work to protect their CB, while their main product, the books, is in pretty much the same state.
Is it really "negativity" when every bit of evidence there is points one way? Sure, the evidence does not constitute conclusive proof of future actions - and it never could - but blithely planning on something that runs counter to all the available evidence seems... ill-judged, to me.
Opinion and conjecture do not equate to evidence, no matter how adamant and condescending the opinion.
OK, look - spin it how you like in your own mind, but what I'm talking about is:
- Changed from 2E to 3E; Core Rules support ceased forthwith.
- Changed from 3.X to 4E; e-Tools support ceased forthwith.
- Changed from offline 4E CB to web-only 4E CB; offline tool support ceased forthwith.
Might they do it differently next time? Yeah, they might. But I'm not holding my breath.
Leaving no easy route to "opt out" if the design path starts going somewhere you don't like is a an attractive proposition for Wizards - and one they haven't passed up, yet.
Well, I think it's understandable that they stop supporting previous editions. They certainly put out a lot of material for each edition. And it is a game that fully encourages making up your own stuff.
As for the 4E tools. This was how they originally wanted the CB, to be online. Along with all the other tools, they failed to come out with.
So the stand alone was an attempt to try and deliver on their first failed promise. Now it seems they have a second chance to make good on the original vision.
The other thing to consider, this is costing WoTC, and Hasbro millions to develop. I would think they would want to keep 4E longer then people suspect. Just a guess.
No one is saying they should support it. the other programs did not cease to function when the new edition came out. This new CB, in all liklyhood, by past behavior, will not support 4e when 5e comes out.
If you want to continue to play 4e, you lose the CB. That DID NOT happen before.
Well, the offline CB will continue to work after the 16th. So...?
Is it really "negativity" when every bit of evidence there is points one way? Sure, the evidence does not constitute conclusive proof of future actions - and it never could - but blithely planning on something that runs counter to all the available evidence seems... ill-judged, to me.
Opinion and conjecture do not equate to evidence, no matter how adamant and condescending the opinion.
OK, look - spin it how you like in your own mind, but what I'm talking about is:
- Changed from 2E to 3E; Core Rules support ceased forthwith.
- Changed from 3.X to 4E; e-Tools support ceased forthwith.
- Changed from offline 4E CB to web-only 4E CB; offline tool support ceased forthwith.
Might they do it differently next time? Yeah, they might. But I'm not holding my breath.
Leaving no easy route to "opt out" if the design path starts going somewhere you don't like is a an attractive proposition for Wizards - and one they haven't passed up, yet.
Well, I think it's understandable that they stop supporting previous editions. They certainly put out a lot of material for each edition. And it is a game that fully encourages making up your own stuff.
As for the 4E tools. This was how they originally wanted the CB, to be online. Along with all the other tools, they failed to come out with.
So the stand alone was an attempt to try and deliver on their first failed promise. Now it seems they have a second chance to make good on the original vision.
The other thing to consider, this is costing WoTC, and Hasbro millions to develop. I would think they would want to keep 4E longer then people suspect. Just a guess.
No one is saying they should support it. the other programs did not cease to function when the new edition came out. This new CB, in all liklyhood, by past behavior, will not support 4e when 5e comes out.
If you want to continue to play 4e, you lose the CB. That DID NOT happen before.
Well, the offline CB will continue to work after the 16th. So...?
It is called a change that alot of us do not like.
But then again, you knew that.
I guess I'm not seeing why they would "turn off" the 4e CB when the release 5e because they'll just be cutting off a current revenue stream. In the previous changeovers (1e->2e, 2e->3e, 3e->3.5e, 3.5e->4e) there was no ongoing revenue stream which was likely a big factor in developing a new edition at those times. With DDI as it is structured now I'd be hard pressed to turn of the money printing machines.
Because they make most of their money selling books. If they keep the 4e tools running then people have a reason to keep playing 4e rather than switching over to 5e, and if they aren't switching over to 4e they likely are not buying the 5e books - so when they switch to 5e it is in their best interest to kill all support for 4e so that people will switch to 5e and buy the new 5e books.
I guess what I'm getting at is drawing an analogy between the current switch (3.x -> 4e) and the future switch (4e -> 5e). With the current switch they have a lot of non-customers that have gone to pathfinder etc. Maintenance of servers hosting an existing product is next to nil so no I don't buy the...shut off the tools to "force" people to buy 5e books because that will cause a split yet again where some move on to other game systems (customers they could keep) and some buy the "new shiny". Why would they want to lose that revenue.
I think the answer you are looking for is the obvious "They won't want to." And they won't do it, either. Pretty sure you know that, too.
I guess what I'm getting at is drawing an analogy between the current switch (3.x -> 4e) and the future switch (4e -> 5e). With the current switch they have a lot of non-customers that have gone to pathfinder etc. Maintenance of servers hosting an existing product is next to nil so no I don't buy the...shut off the tools to "force" people to buy 5e books because that will cause a split yet again where some move on to other game systems (customers they could keep) and some buy the "new shiny". Why would they want to lose that revenue.
If past history is indicative of future behavior, they are perfectly happy splitting us into waring camps that are constantly sniping at each other. This works for them two-fold. All publicity is good publicity and our spats of nerd rage help them sell the product to Hasbro Corporate (Hey, look guys there HAS to be interst there, look at all the FLAMES! This next product approach is sure to tap into that market...). Also, if we are busy flaming each other, then we are least likely to raise our issues to Hasbro Corporate, or even worse the Board of Directors!
I guess what I'm getting at is drawing an analogy between the current switch (3.x -> 4e) and the future switch (4e -> 5e). With the current switch they have a lot of non-customers that have gone to pathfinder etc. Maintenance of servers hosting an existing product is next to nil so no I don't buy the...shut off the tools to "force" people to buy 5e books because that will cause a split yet again where some move on to other game systems (customers they could keep) and some buy the "new shiny". Why would they want to lose that revenue.
Why? becuase they have done it every.single.time.so.far.
What makes you think they won't do it this time? They have a captured audience.
The old CB with the last update is going to be on the web for years to come and I have a feeling people are just going to download it and use that instead of going to the new CB.
yep and all potential customers going bye bye wizards
Most computers (owners) won't let you download and install random programs like Silverlight on their computers so the portability is really not as good as they say...
lolwut? Silverlight is a "random" program? That's pretty funny, but saves me from having to read your other "insight."
Its an obscure web based program that requires the user to click the allow button on their browser/OS (in windowz at least). So yes, most people won't let you do it. I know if I didn't know what it was I CERTAINLY wouldn't let my nephews do it to my computer...
The other thing to consider, this is costing WoTC, and Hasbro millions to develop. I would think they would want to keep 4E longer then people suspect. Just a guess.
I would be amazed if the CB alone was millions - a few hundred thou, more likely - but the point remains, it's an investment for them, sure. But that doesn't change the fact that, either when they see an advantage to doing so for themselves or when circumstances beyond their control dictate, a web-based tool will suddenly and irrevocably become unavailable to all its users. The users themselves will have no say in this.
Furthermore, when the design direction takes a turn, users that don't like the new direction will have no option to "opt out" if they want to keep the CB available to them. That's a disenfranchisement I have a great distaste for, as a customer.
I was thinking total cost when I said millions. They got pretty far on things like the VTT and CB when it wall went up in flames. Because, yes, the CB alone didn't cost millions. So there was a lot of money they spent before anything was released, that didn't make any money back for them.
Well, people get flipped out about change, bad or good. If it had been the other way around, a move from online to offline, people would complain about that. Probably saying that it was the end of 4E, because that makes it easier to stop supporting it, or that now they have to update it, rather then having the updates appear without having to do anything.
The thing is, DnD is still a niche game and RPG is still a niche market, especially this kind. Card games, video games, are all much easier to set up and play. I mean when you talk about these kinds of games with people that don't play them, they only think of DnD, they probably don't know anything about Pathfinder, Shadowrun, Gamma World, or GRUPS. They just lump it all as DnD.
As such, they can't really support two kinds of Character Builders that do the same thing. There just isn't enough money being made for that.
I think that moving online will prove to be a good move, even if it upset people, if they can finally achieve the original plan. I'm betting that for everything to come together in the VTT, having it online, in their database/cloud is going to make it a lot easier and faster and workable.
The upside is that if you don't use the VTT, you can still use all the other tools to make your game better. Sure, you could do all that offline. But again, having to do the same work twice, and at an increased cost? WoTC just doesn't make that kind of money.
There is an error in your logic. With Silverlight they can make it offline too, which just a few extra lines of code (to download the database). Its as simple as that. They are consciously choosing not to do this.
Also about the money thing; Whatever loss they originally took is long since gone. The DDi group which has been confirmed by users to accurately track DDi subscriptions has over 40k people in it, and has for some time. This is (before cost) 40,000 * $6 = $240,000 per month or $2,880,000 per year MINIMUM. It is more probably that they make much more than this, but for the sake of argument we'll go with the minimum.
Also while they tout their "portability" they don't take into account the fact that most publicly available computers do not allow the installation of programs like Silverlight, thus a big chunk of their "portability" just disappeared.
Now I took a look at the video and it was well presented, looked professional, it even had hidden advertising in the form of the red box on the table.
Now on to the actual character builder. It looked like a UI nightmare with multiple clicks needed to get to various parts of the process. Nice graphics, but I'd rather see information. It also seemed to go pretty slow pausing several times when a single button was clicked. I can't imagine what will happen when 40k user try to access it during prime time.
Overall it looks to me as if it has lost functionality, but if they redesigned it from the ground up and got rid of spaghetti code and REALLY took the time to develop it right, then maybe, just maybe it will be a springboard from which a worthwhile character builder will one day arrive "soon"...
You will still be able to use the old stand alone CB afte the 16th. They won't update, but it will still work, and you can still use it. However, if you have a crash or it gets corrupted or whatever, you won't be able to reinstall it. Perhaps they might reconsider that at some point. Doubt it. So treat it like the precious child it is. That's your legacy option.
The problem with this argument is that they crippled the CBC with the last update, so in order to use it in a workable way, you have to get it off a torrent site. Which sucks for those people that are honest and don't want to do that.
They are going to quickly introduce an export feature, which I take to mean that you can export your online Characters to your offline software.
This is another "soon" argument. I'll believe it when I see it. Heck I'm hard pressed to believe they will have it out on the 16th.
I do think that about the CB being online, because they said that was one of the reasons to do this. At some point I suspect that a map making tool, using the tile art will be available. There will also be the option to draw your maps, at least that's what they once showed.
What they once showed has been relegated to the trash at this point. Since they have to start completely over, they may or may not allow that.
As for uploading your own images. Who knows? It's too early to speculate. I would certainly like the option to upload artwork for character sheet pictures. Or even the ability to design my own Character sheets.
That's a lot of server space 20 2MB pics per account? that's 80GB right there!
To me, DnD seems to be in an unusal spot, marketing wise. While other smaller game companies might not have an issue with pirated copies, because it gets people interested in their game, that doesn't work with WoTC, as if you are into gaming or not, chances are you've heard of DnD, and have some understanding of what it's about.
I don't think pirating of the books themselves has had much impact. Those that pirate PDFs for the most part (and studies have shown) won't be converted to customers anyway. On the other hand the CBC being pirated because of the utility you get out of it might have a small impact. Not much though.
However, DnD is still niche. Where the record companies claim that copies and napster hurt them, but can show no evidence of such, piracy probably does hurt WoTC. When you have tens of thousands of your PDFs being sold and you get nothing, that's a lot of money for a company like WoTC.
To big to need to get players by piracy, not big enough were piracy doesn't hurt.
See above...
To me, DnD seems to be in an unusal spot, marketing wise. While other smaller game companies might not have an issue with pirated copies, because it gets people interested in their game, that doesn't work with WoTC, as if you are into gaming or not, chances are you've heard of DnD, and have some understanding of what it's about.
I am not sure if you are talking about D&D in general or the digital venture, but...
To me, D&D has always had a disjunction between their paper product and their software product. Whether it was putting 3rd party developers to work or their taking it on themselves, the talent needed to match up with the vision was just never on par with each other. It appears that the talent in the digital solution is starting to catch up to the paper. They have a ways to go, obviously.
I just think this was initially an attempt to stay true to the "hard core" D&D population, and once they realized that a digital solution was really necessary (to appease their customers), they jumped on board. It's been a game of catch-up since.
Thus, I agree that your assessment earlier that the lifespan of 4E is going to be a lot longer than what others may perceive. I think that Wizards wants the two products to be on par with each other before they get ready to strike with 5E.
The problem here (and I'm a software developer so I know) is that with a new set of rules you pretty much have to start over on your digital tools. A map maker or campaign tracker might be easy to switch over, but the CB or MB would have to be completely reworked.
I guess what I'm getting at is drawing an analogy between the current switch (3.x -> 4e) and the future switch (4e -> 5e). With the current switch they have a lot of non-customers that have gone to pathfinder etc. Maintenance of servers hosting an existing product is next to nil so no I don't buy the...shut off the tools to "force" people to buy 5e books because that will cause a split yet again where some move on to other game systems (customers they could keep) and some buy the "new shiny". Why would they want to lose that revenue.
Keep in mind this happened before they officially pulled the PDFs for 4E. When 4E came out they stopped selling previous edition PDFs. This was a deliberate move. Thus, yes all evidence points to them dropping everything 4E including the online tools.
My belief is that there will be other fine stand alone programs out there to use instead, either ones made specifically for character generation, or something that is akin to a more intuitive Excell that can be worked into a character generator. (a template being sold to accomplish this)
It won't matter, down the road, what Wizards does with "official" support for an edition that is being replaced, just as it doesn't matter now, with Herolab doing 3.5 and Pathfinder just fine, thank you.
Let's keep focused on the here and now, not a decade down the road.
I really think that 4th edition isn't going to be replaced anytime soon, but when 5th edition does come out I believe technoligy will be advanced enough to be able to adjust the CB for the new edition instead of coming up with a whole new set of tools.
Sure, they will adjust the tools to handle the 5th edition and no longer handle the 4th edition. It makes absolutely no sense for them to continue supporting the 4th edition after they have shifted to 5th edition (unless sometime in the next few years they stare making more money off of the digital tools than they make from the books) because supporting the old edition gives customers less of an incentive to move to the new edition - thus costing them book sales.
And who know when the edition will be replaced - it only took 3 years to move from 3e to 3.5e and another 5 years from 3.5e to 4e. We have had 4e for only two years, but they have already felt the need to massively restructure things (I'm sorry, essentials is only somewhat compatible with what came before) so who knows how long they will keep up with 4e.
The problem here (and I'm a software developer so I know) is that with a new set of rules you pretty much have to start over on your digital tools. A map maker or campaign tracker might be easy to switch over, but the CB or MB would have to be completely reworked.
Well, of course, but this doesn't really prove or disprove anything. But apparently I am missing your point.
The development of the 5E digital toolset can be going on during 5E rules development, playtesting, printing, etc. They will have time between the completion of the rules and the time they are published and shipped. They can coordinate the launch. If they want the digital product to be taken seriously moving forward, they are going to have to be parallel, if not very close to each other, particularly when 5E hits.
The very last thing that they want is an obsolete DDI during a new product launch. But we're probably at least 5 years from that happening, anyhow.
I'm all for having hope and being optimistic. But that's not for everyone, and we can't expect everyone else to keep on hoping and believing when past experience leads to the opposite conclusion.
I guess the assumption is they'll learn from previous mistakes? Again, past experience in this regard tells a different story.
You make a good point... which is why I wonder why they DIDN'T develop the digital toolset along with the playtesting and everything else for 4E when that was originally one of the selling points on the new edition.
I'm all for having hope and being optimistic. But that's not for everyone, and we can't expect everyone else to keep on hoping and believing when past experience leads to the opposite conclusion.
I guess the assumption is they'll learn from previous mistakes? Again, past experience in this regard tells a different story.
Well, they did. The 4E books are proof of that. They all contained the advertising for the full suite of the DDI subscription, or at least its intent. Something happened, though, and they were not able to deliver it for whatever reason.
I think they dove two feet in and didn't realize how deep the water was. This time around, they are so guarded about it. I really wish they would present what their vision is regarding DDI. It would be nice, as a consumer, to know what is planned. If I knew they were at least working towards a full campaign management suite, that would alleviate most of my concerns.
But they had more to worry about than deep water and their inability to swim. There were sharks in the water, too. And jellyfish. They have a hard time even dipping a toe in now, without the fear of pulling back a nub.
Obviously, Wizards is not absolved of responsibility in this. Quite the contrary. They should be held accountable for underdelivery. But moving forward, they are going to be incredibly cautious moving forward because the water is still wrought with danger. So much more could get accomplished if they could work together with the community. I think they are trying to, but as soon as that toe gets in the water, it's being attacked.
Both Wizards and the customers need really do need to just put their faith back in each other right now. It will solve so many of the problems so much sooner. All this attack and defense is so counterproductive. But hey, I guess that's the optimist in me.
You make a good point... which is why I wonder why they DIDN'T develop the digital toolset along with the playtesting and everything else for 4E when that was originally one of the selling points on the new edition.
I'm all for having hope and being optimistic. But that's not for everyone, and we can't expect everyone else to keep on hoping and believing when past experience leads to the opposite conclusion.
I guess the assumption is they'll learn from previous mistakes? Again, past experience in this regard tells a different story.
Well, they did. The 4E books are proof of that. They all contained the advertising for the full suite of the DDI subscription, or at least its intent. Something happened, though, and they were not able to deliver it for whatever reason.
I think they dove two feet in and didn't realize how deep the water was. This time around, they are so guarded about it. I really wish they would present what their vision is regarding DDI. It would be nice, as a consumer, to know what is planned. If I knew they were at least working towards a full campaign management suite, that would alleviate most of my concerns.
But they had more to worry about than deep water and their inability to swim. There were sharks in the water, too. And jellyfish. They have a hard time even dipping a toe in now, without the fear of pulling back a nub.
Obviously, Wizards is not absolved of responsibility in this. Quite the contrary. They should be held accountable for underdelivery. But moving forward, they are going to be incredibly cautious moving forward because the water is still wrought with danger. So much more could get accomplished if they could work together with the community. I think they are trying to, but as soon as that toe gets in the water, it's being attacked.
Both Wizards and the customers need really do need to just put their faith back in each other right now. It will solve so many of the problems so much sooner. All this attack and defense is so counterproductive. But hey, I guess that's the optimist in me.
I think they get more crap than they need to but lets be honest. They are a company. If they cannot deal with angry customers, or they get their feelings hurt by people, then they should not be in the business that they are in. It doesn't happpen on the book side and it souldn't happen on the Digital side.
And with some people, it is not just the Digital Tools. It is the entire thing - the company - the game - and then this replacement CB is just the tipping point where alot of people are parting ways - and guess what? Alot of those people are angry and dissapointed to be parting ways with the company. I know an entire group that moved to pathfinder. BTW not mine, we are playing with essentials right now). The CB was just the last straw and they said screw it. Are they upset? Yep, they are not playing the official D&D anymore for the first time in 30 years.
So just as when D&D 4.0 came out and divided the community when some people realized that they are not WotC customers anymore, there are going to be a bunch of people that realize that this is the case for them now. The only thing is, now you have essentials and people who preferr the old CB on top of that.
So anyways, I am glad that you are optimistic about the tools. I really am. But to alot of us, they have to show it. A new tool would have gone a huge way into getting people back into the fold.
I just recall seeing those adds back when 4E first came out... or at least when I first saw it available while deployed. It was my first experience with actual D&D, though I'd played RPGs in the past. I thought it all sounded great, and I set up my DnDI account soon after, thinking their plans for the future sounded pretty cool, even though I didn't know if I'd ever need all those virtual tools and what-not. Now I'm glad I wasn't counting on them to deliver on their vision.
I'm totally fine with them moving forward cautiously IF that means that they're making sensible decisions and taking customers' desires into account as much as possible. Those two things won't always work out; we have a knack for expecting everything and then some, and they do have to make a profit if this game is going to survive.
I just don't see them moving forward cautiously. "Oh hey, in a couple weeks, here are some sweeping changes you can expect... surprise!" doesn't strike me as cautious. The flame and vitriol on these boards shows I'm not the only one who might see it that way.
If by any means they are able to avoid underdelivery and/or empty promises in the future, I am glad for it. I'm happy they have vision, and I try to be optimistic.
But I'll refer you to your signature, and I'll keep my expectations low for now.
I guess I'm not seeing why they would "turn off" the 4e CB when the release 5e because they'll just be cutting off a current revenue stream.
The same reason they caused the cessation of sales of eTools when 4E was announced. They cut off a revenue stream then; CMP were paying license fees to them, but they saw strengthening the new brand as more important. I expect them to do exactly the same when 5E debuts - and I have absolutely no problem with them doing so. My point is that I refuse to pay for a product that is set up such that it will screw me over when this happens. I regard that as nothing more than rational.
In the previous changeovers (1e->2e, 2e->3e, 3e->3.5e, 3.5e->4e) there was no ongoing revenue stream which was likely a big factor in developing a new edition at those times. With DDI as it is structured now I'd be hard pressed to turn of the money printing machines.
I couldn't say how "major" the licensing fees were for eTools, but I would expect the 4E CB to be replaced seamlessly by the 5E CB, giving DDI subscribers continuing "service" without interruption, so there should be no question of any lost revenue stream, in Wizards' eyes.
So anyways, I am glad that you are optimistic about the tools. I really am. But to alot of us, they have to show it. A new tool would have gone a huge way into getting people back into the fold.
I'm skeptical, don't get me wrong. I just keep everything in perspective. When it's all said and done, it is only a game, after all. But I would rather have their plan laid out publically so I know the direction they are going in so I can make a decision about whether I want to stay subscribed or not. If they are going to continue ushering out player utilities, or nothing substantial for DM's, I want out.
I would also rather have their plan laid out and for them to tell us that they cannot find a solution for X because of Y. At least then I know they are working towards these goals. It's a lot easier to part with my money when I know it's going towards a vision that I can see.
I gave them the benefit of the doubt this time around. I signed on for 3 months starting the 18th. If I don't see any signs of or plans for significant progress, I'm out.
I guess I'm not seeing why they would "turn off" the 4e CB when the release 5e because they'll just be cutting off a current revenue stream.
The same reason they caused the cessation of sales of eTools when 4E was announced. They cut off a revenue stream then; CMP were paying license fees to them, but they saw strengthening the new brand as more important. I expect them to do exactly the same when 5E debuts - and I have absolutely no problem with them doing so. My point is that I refuse to pay for a product that is set up such that it will screw me over when this happens. I regard that as nothing more than rational.In the previous changeovers (1e->2e, 2e->3e, 3e->3.5e, 3.5e->4e) there was no ongoing revenue stream which was likely a big factor in developing a new edition at those times. With DDI as it is structured now I'd be hard pressed to turn of the money printing machines.
I couldn't say how "major" the licensing fees were for eTools, but I would expect the 4E CB to be replaced seamlessly by the 5E CB, giving DDI subscribers continuing "service" without interruption, so there should be no question of any lost revenue stream, in Wizards' eyes.
Well if the firestorm over oCB -> webCB is any indication of lost subscription revenue they should expect an even larger drop when 4e -> 5e. If I'm in the middle of a campaign when this happens and they drop ALL 4e support I can guarantee DDI will have no value for me and will get cancelled.
I agree with the general idea that they will do whatever is most financially viable for them at the time, I just happen to believe they'll have more revenue if they keep the old tools available vs. shutting the old tools off to drive book sales. It's akin to cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Well if the firestorm over oCB -> webCB is any indication of lost subscription revenue they should expect an even larger drop when 4e -> 5e. If I'm in the middle of a campaign when this happens and they drop ALL 4e support I can guarantee DDI will have no value for me and will get cancelled.
Sure - I just think it will be too late by then, because I'll already be in a world of inconvenience (together with my players), so why wait that long? Especially since I have a very functional CB and game system right now.
I agree with the general idea that they will do whatever is most financially viable for them at the time, I just happen to believe they'll have more revenue if they keep the old tools available vs. shutting the old tools off to drive book sales. It's akin to cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I'm sure they'll do whatever they perceive as being most financially viable - I'm just not convinced they are very effective at recognising what that is. It's an especially tricky area since you never know if, with a different decision, you might have done better. All you know is if you did well enough to stay afloat. I'm pretty sure they would do that either way, which means the decision will depend mainly on personal perceptions, biases and theories of those with power in WotC. So far, their biases, perspectives and theories seem to run more to "strongarm the punters and shaft the pirates" than they do to "how can we make our products and services delight the customer and consistently exceed their expectations?"...
I guess I'm not seeing why they would "turn off" the 4e CB when the release 5e because they'll just be cutting off a current revenue stream.
The same reason they caused the cessation of sales of eTools when 4E was announced. They cut off a revenue stream then; CMP were paying license fees to them, but they saw strengthening the new brand as more important. I expect them to do exactly the same when 5E debuts - and I have absolutely no problem with them doing so. My point is that I refuse to pay for a product that is set up such that it will screw me over when this happens. I regard that as nothing more than rational.In the previous changeovers (1e->2e, 2e->3e, 3e->3.5e, 3.5e->4e) there was no ongoing revenue stream which was likely a big factor in developing a new edition at those times. With DDI as it is structured now I'd be hard pressed to turn of the money printing machines.
I couldn't say how "major" the licensing fees were for eTools, but I would expect the 4E CB to be replaced seamlessly by the 5E CB, giving DDI subscribers continuing "service" without interruption, so there should be no question of any lost revenue stream, in Wizards' eyes.
Well if the firestorm over oCB -> webCB is any indication of lost subscription revenue they should expect an even larger drop when 4e -> 5e. If I'm in the middle of a campaign when this happens and they drop ALL 4e support I can guarantee DDI will have no value for me and will get cancelled.
I agree with the general idea that they will do whatever is most financially viable for them at the time, I just happen to believe they'll have more revenue if they keep the old tools available vs. shutting the old tools off to drive book sales. It's akin to cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Which is exactly what WotC has done in the past. They literally cut off all support (both bookwise and electronically) as soon as 4E came out. Same with 3.5E. Same with 3.0E.
Which is exactly what WotC has done in the past. They literally cut off all support (both bookwise and electronically) as soon as 4E came out. Same with 3.5E. Same with 3.0E.
That is pretty disingenous and not the whole story. Digital tools, pre-4e, were not even developed or supported by Wizards. They were handled by their 3rd party developers. So of course they did not have any way to support the software directly. I don't even think that they could legally distribute the software once the contracts were terminated.
The fiasco with Code Monkey was a major factor into Wizards going in-house with future developments.
This information explains how support from Code Monkey and for eTools, and can be found here:
Code Monkey Publishing has agreed to provide a patch for Wizard's E-Tools. This patch for the E-Tools program, which will fix a lengthy list of bugs, will be completed and made available within 90 days to Wizards of the Coast. Code Monkey Publishing will also provide initial and continued support for E-Tools through their website, which will be the official E-Tools website henceforth. This means the patch will be available for download from the Code Monkey website, as well as providing forums for E-Tools discussion to the public. All questions, concerns and comments addressing E-Tools can be directed to these forums starting right away, by choosing the Zoo Graffiti link from the main page of Code Monkey's site.
Which is exactly what WotC has done in the past. They literally cut off all support (both bookwise and electronically) as soon as 4E came out. Same with 3.5E. Same with 3.0E.
That is pretty disingenous and not the whole story. Digital tools, pre-4e, were not even developed or supported by Wizards. They were handled by their 3rd party developers. So of course they did not have any way to support the software directly. I don't even think that they could legally distribute the software once the contracts were terminated.
The fiasco with Code Monkey was a major factor into Wizards going in-house with future developments.
This information explains how support from Code Monkey and for eTools, and can be found here:Code Monkey Publishing has agreed to provide a patch for Wizard's E-Tools. This patch for the E-Tools program, which will fix a lengthy list of bugs, will be completed and made available within 90 days to Wizards of the Coast. Code Monkey Publishing will also provide initial and continued support for E-Tools through their website, which will be the official E-Tools website henceforth. This means the patch will be available for download from the Code Monkey website, as well as providing forums for E-Tools discussion to the public. All questions, concerns and comments addressing E-Tools can be directed to these forums starting right away, by choosing the Zoo Graffiti link from the main page of Code Monkey's site.
WotC PULLED those contracts. Your not seeing the point...
WotC PULLED those contracts. Your not seeing the point...
Wizards didn't pull the contracts. They did not agree to the contract extensions. That is a completely different thing. And they did so because they wanted to pursue different directions with the digital solution as a solo venture (in-house).
CMP still had the rights to eTools. They decided not to continue to support those tools, and with good reason.
That is pretty disingenous and not the whole story. Digital tools, pre-4e, were not even developed or supported by Wizards. They were handled by their 3rd party developers. So of course they did not have any way to support the software directly. I don't even think that they could legally distribute the software once the contracts were terminated.
I know eTools was neither developed nor supported by Wizards - as an eTools customer I remember it well. Fluid developed it, but it was a mess. Code Monkey, who had developed a third party tool "PCGen", were contacted by WotC and brought in to 'pick up the pieces' - full credit there to WotC for contacting a "freebooting competitor" and positively engaging with them. But, when 4E rolled around, WotC pulled the license with CMP but fast. Why they would do anything different when in full control of the development is unclear to me.
The fiasco with Code Monkey was a major factor into Wizards going in-house with future developments.
That would be the fiasco with Fluid, the original developer. Code Monkey came in and basically salvaged the program - by the close of 3.5E it was actually working pretty well (albeit that, IIRC, the last few books for 3.5E could not be included as the shutters had already come down at that point).
Wizards didn't pull the contracts. They did not agree to the contract extensions. That is a completely different thing. And they did so because they wanted to pursue different directions with the digital solution as a solo venture (in-house).
Not renewing a regularly renewed contract amounts to "pulling" it, come on. And they wanted to change direction to in-house because they had big plans for 4E - plans that didn't come off, as we know. But, given that they wanted to do 4E in-house, how much would it have really cost them to let a third party continue to offer (under license) 3.X tools?
CMP still had the rights to eTools. They decided not to continue to support those tools, and with good reason.
Actually, they didn't. eTools belonged (I guess belongs, actually) to WotC. They simply held a license. They still had PCGen and the new tool they were working on at the time (and that WotC had suggested they might be able to license D&D content for). But eTools updates and support had a cut-off date set by Wizards.
Not renewing a regularly renewed contract amounts to "pulling" it, come on.
Pulling a contract is cancelling it. Not renewing it equates to the existing contract being fulfilled and not wanting to move forward. The only thing that they really have in common with each other is that they ceased moving forward at that point.
But, given that they wanted to do 4E in-house, how much would it have really cost them to let a third party continue to offer (under license) 3.X tools?
Obviously enough that they did not want to pursue it any longer. There was likely minimal revenue coming in from it any longer, especially since it was a (an outdated) stand-alone product. Contracting out further support was likely a significant money sink that exceeded the budget, particularly since they were going in a new direction for digital 4E.
Whatever. It does not establish any pattern for future behavior or expectations of Wizards moving forward for the current digital service that they provide transitioning into 5E. To say that they will drop 4E support like they did for 3.5 is simply opinion and conjecture, not founded on any established pattern. It's a completely different situation, and a service is far removed from a stand-alone product.
I'll gladly eat my words if it happens, but it won't. But I can't prove that, just as much as anyone else can prove the converse.
Not renewing a regularly renewed contract amounts to "pulling" it, come on.
Pulling a contract is cancelling it. Not renewing it equates to the existing contract being fulfilled and not wanting to move forward. The only thing that they really have in common with each other is that they ceased moving forward at that point.But, given that they wanted to do 4E in-house, how much would it have really cost them to let a third party continue to offer (under license) 3.X tools?
Obviously enough that they did not want to pursue it any longer. There was likely minimal revenue coming in from it any longer, especially since it was a (an outdated) stand-alone product. Contracting out further support was likely a significant money sink that exceeded the budget, particularly since they were going in a new direction for digital 4E.
Whatever. It does not establish any pattern for future behavior or expectations of Wizards moving forward for the current digital service that they provide transitioning into 5E. To say that they will drop 4E support like they did for 3.5 is simply opinion and conjecture, not founded on any established pattern. It's a completely different situation, and a service is far removed from a stand-alone product.
I'll gladly eat my words if it happens, but it won't. But I can't prove that, just as much as anyone else can prove the converse.
I see your join date is 08. I'm not sure if you know about the history of WotC and D&D, but I suggest you read up on it by using the search at the top of the forums. The pattern is there for those of us that have been with WotC since their beginning...
I see your join date is 08. I'm not sure if you know about the history of WotC and D&D, but I suggest you read up on it by using the search at the top of the forums. The pattern is there for those of us that have been with WotC since their beginning...
And your join date is 11/08. Bravo. Some people do create new accounts you know, for various reasons. And I've been following D&D since I started playing in 1978.
Hell, the new essentials books are even nice and easy to carry around.
With this fact coupled with the fact that you can print characters sheets I don't see why CB would be required where you don't have internet since you probably don't have a printer there either.
I'm loving the change to CB so my friends and I don't have to carry around copies of our characters everywhere all the time. Then having to manually update them on each different PC and everything else was a pain. Now wherever we play we can just go online and print and not have to worry whether the powers, feats and items are all 100% correct.
To be completely honest the old CB was a resourse hungry crappily programmed disaster that took about 10X longer than it should have to load and update. It also was prone to hanging should, god forbid, you look at a number of feats that seemed to almost always freeze the program.
What all this bitching tells me is there were a lot of people who either pirated the CB or would pay every couple months when a book the wanted content from was being added to the CB. Now if you play in places without internet you may have to *gasp* buy some books.
Warhammer Fantasy is all offline btw and not bad, for those looking for ways to spend the money you'll have when you don't buy wotc products anymore.
BTW: You don't need to print your character when you can export it to iplay4e and use it on your iphone using its own 3g connection. Oh wait I can't export anymore...
I don't like to wait around for an hour trying to find a feat because its in a book, when I'm at the table we play, we don't read the books. I don't like to spend my free time doing the math that the character builder did for me. Good for you if your have free time coming out of your ears and like to do math. I picked up 4e after skipping 3e because my life had to much crap and a paper and pencil rpg became to much hassle to prep before you even got to play, 4e with the tools from the community and the couple tools that wotc had made it faster and easier... now that's changed. Will I keep playing, we'll see? Will depend if they get the stupid thing to at least as functional before the end of my current sub.
Bitching about access to CB in places where there is no internet makes me laugh. There are books people, BOOKS.
Hell, the new essentials books are even nice and easy to carry around.
With this fact coupled with the fact that you can print characters sheets I don't see why CB would be required where you don't have internet since you probably don't have a printer there either.
I'm loving the change to CB so my friends and I don't have to carry around copies of our characters everywhere all the time. Then having to manually update them on each different PC and everything else was a pain. Now wherever we play we can just go online and print and not have to worry whether the powers, feats and items are all 100% correct.
To be completely honest the old CB was a resourse hungry crappily programmed disaster that took about 10X longer than it should have to load and update. It also was prone to hanging should, god forbid, you look at a number of feats that seemed to almost always freeze the program.
What all this bitching tells me is there were a lot of people who either pirated the CB or would pay every couple months when a book the wanted content from was being added to the CB. Now if you play in places without internet you may have to *gasp* buy some books.
Bitching about people bitching and making unfounded assumptions about those people makes me laugh too... especially because if you've read ANY of the many threads on this subject (clearly you haven't), there are multiple posts about how this change will affect the way people prefer to play. Does it mean we can't possibly play at all ever? No, and that strawman has already been addressed. What it DOES mean is that the way some people like to play will be fundamentally changed by the requirement to be online.
I own a stack of about 20 books and I have more on the way in the mail. I pay my subscription, and the only time I quit was when I wasn't actively playing D&D. Now that I am playing, I am paying, because I find it more useful than not. I will continue to pay for the foreseeable future.
That doesn't mean I like the change, and it doesn't mean I shouldn't voice my opinion.
Let us get this straight. E-Tools is wholely and completely owned by Wizards of the Coast, always has been. It was developed by Fluid (www.fluidentertainment.com/) and Wizards together, the first example of their colaberation was a CD that was in the back of the 3.0 PHB's when 3rd edition first came out.
It was limiting and had glaring errors, a patch was actually made for this, but most waited for the "Master Tools" that was supposed to follow. That never happened.
E-Tools was released about 9 months later, give or take. It was, simply, unusable. Patches came afterward, but Fluid messed up. There was two different versions of the program, you see, and they came out with a patch for each. If you use the wrong patch, it broke the program, and everything needed uninstalled and cleared out of the registory before it could be re installed and the correct patch applied. They couldn't come out with a universal patch, and was unable to explain what was going on with the current ones.
When refunds were demanded, and the progam's sales tanked, Wizards contacted Code Monkey Publishing (www.codemonkeypublishing.biz) (CMP) and contracted them to fix 42 errors in E-Tools. They ended up, that first time, fixing over 200. After this, they were awarded the license and allowed to produce the data packs, which had to go through approval before released, for both E-Tools and their own program, an open sourced project called PC Gen.
CMP still had problems with E-Tools, though. The Database was hardwired (Their words) and didn't allow for the changes needed for some of the rule additions that had come since the original release. (I think the CBC had a bit of this with the Hybrid rules and some of the essientials changes) They are working on a new project that was supposed to take over for E-Tools, one that could have also been adapted for the new edition. Wizards, though, let the license lapse after they started on the change over to the new edition. CMP tried to talk to Wizards about the renewal without knowing that it wasn't to be and wasn't informed that they would not get the renewal until about six months before the contract expired. Lousy handling by Wizards after all the good work CMP had done for them.
Wizard's history with electronic aids is not stellar, so forgive us if we are scepticle about the impending change.
Whatever. It does not establish any pattern for future behavior or expectations of Wizards moving forward for the current digital service that they provide transitioning into 5E. To say that they will drop 4E support like they did for 3.5 is simply opinion and conjecture, not founded on any established pattern. It's a completely different situation, and a service is far removed from a stand-alone product.
OK, yeah. If you say so.
I'll gladly eat my words if it happens, but it won't. But I can't prove that, just as much as anyone else can prove the converse.
Right. Hopefully we'll have forgotten all about it by then.
I lived 60 miles away from work and traveld that all via freeway (and toll). Imagine if Ford came to me and said, "Look, this car you are leasing is all well and good, but you might loan it to some one else to use once or twice. We are going to give you something better, a moped. Enjoy."
The new CB is a lateral move at best, but I see it mostly as a downgrade. The whole cloud business is terrible. I'm literally handing over my creative works, things that I may have spent months developing, straight to WotC and locking it on their servers in their format. Once that happens, I loose control of it and that is a risk that I am not willing to take. A txt or word document is forever. A file on the WotC cloud is for however long WotC feels like.
the old cb wont help you anywhere there isnt power, so playing Dnd while camping i guess is out.
We play while camping, and we have power but no Internet access. And we do use CB while camping to play around with ideas. Oh well, I guess now we'll have to do something old fashioned like read on our iphones or watch movies on same. ;)
Or, you know, print out char sheets, and play manually. just be careful--for some reason, yelling about defeating evil overlords at 2AM makes forest rangers angry... ;)
Of course, in boy scouts, back in my day, we were lucky to have a book, let alone a char sheet of any sort. we had to make characters uphill in the snow, both ways.../oldrant
Hardly a lease. It's a rental. Hardly a moped. More like that rental company providing you a different car. If you don't like the car they are providing, that's very unfortunate, but perfectly in your right to turn it in and stop renting. You are more than welcome to find a different way into work.
A txt or word document is forever.
You can still do this, you know. No one is stopping you.
Or, you know, print out char sheets, and play manually. just be careful--for some reason, yelling about defeating evil overlords at 2AM makes forest rangers angry... ;)
Of course, in boy scouts, back in my day, we were lucky to have a book, let alone a char sheet of any sort. we had to make characters uphill in the snow, both ways.../oldrant
LOL. Our dice were solid and we had to use crayons to color in the numbers so they contrasted. 4d6 and drop the lowest was the way, not this fancy point buy mumbo jumbo. Photocopied blank character sheets, pencil, and paper, and the desire and perseverance to pour through pages upon pages of books to tweak your character just right.
Ah, yes. The good old days.
I see your join date is 08. I'm not sure if you know about the history of WotC and D&D, but I suggest you read up on it by using the search at the top of the forums. The pattern is there for those of us that have been with WotC since their beginning...
And your join date is 11/08. Bravo. Some people do create new accounts you know, for various reasons. And I've been following D&D since I started playing in 1978.
Mine says 08 too? hmmm... I've been a memeber since the forums first came online. I've been playing since 2E came out... You seriously don't see a pattern? your not just messing with us?
I'm guessing that by the time 4e came out everyone who wanted the eTools already had a copy (dried up revenue stream). Companies are greedy (aren't we all?) and will act in their own best interest (within reason). They'll be able to figure out that for minimal cost (keeping the tools available) they get to keep a big fat revenue stream.
It wasn't just the e-tools program itself though - the datasets went away as well. I am not even sure you could download them if your computer crashed.
It seems like even the most basic QA wasn't done on this product:
"Try building a character of every class, no particular build. Just see if any build of the class basically works"
"Try using a multiclass power swap feat."
"Try a character that has a holy symbol."
"See if you can give a character inherent bonuses as recommended in the Dark Sun Campaign Guide."
Performance is abysmal with every interaction with the program being validated, often causing delays of several seconds. I've heard reports of a click taking 28 seconds to propagate. The printing is a joke! No text in the print spool? Wizards is so paranoid about anyone having the potential to have access to the text of their character that they made the print output a bloated image? Really?
And thus I bring us back to the original question of the thread:
What is the unambiguous benefit, for us, for us the existing users to the Character Builder being exclusively online?
Because right now all I see is a buggy piece of pre-alpha software that has nowhere near the functionality of the classic character builder. All I see is a piece of software designed without any insight into how people might actually use it. All I see, I'm sorry to say, is a piece of software that speaks rather poorly about the production and implementation skills of the DDI team and management.
What is the unambiguous benefit, for us, for us the existing users to the Character Builder being exclusively online? Because right now all I see is a buggy piece of pre-alpha software that has nowhere near the functionality of the classic character builder.
To be fair, the new CB would still be a buggy piece of pre-alpha software even if you could use it offline.
What is the unambiguous benefit, for us, for us the existing users to the Character Builder being exclusively online?
If you could kindly fill out the following questionnaire we will gladly answer the question for you:
1. Do you own a laptop?
2. What OS(es) do you use?
3. What sort of internet access do you have in the various locations where you like to use the CB?
4. Is your current game using Dark Sun or Essentials material?
5. How much do you care about the GUI (pretty is better or functional and scr*w the graphics)?
6. Which side of bed do you get out on?
7. What is your favorite color?
8. Is the sky blue?
I hope I've made my point, but in case I didn't....kindly answer the question for yourself because the question is SUBJECTIVE PER USER. Hence my earlier comment "it's a bogus question to which there is no finite answer". That all said I'll go out on a limb here and suggest that (for you) there is no unambiguous benefit just because you keep asking the question. I'm sure I'm on really shaky ground there, but meh.
What is the unambiguous benefit, for us, for us the existing users to the Character Builder being exclusively online?
If you could kindly fill out the following questionnaire we will gladly answer the question for you:
1. Do you own a laptop?
2. What OS(es) do you use?
3. What sort of internet access do you have in the various locations where you like to use the CB?
4. Is your current game using Dark Sun or Essentials material?
5. How much do you care about the GUI (pretty is better or functional and scr*w the graphics)?
6. Which side of bed do you get out on?
7. What is your favorite color?
8. Is the sky blue?
I hope I've made my point, but in case I didn't....kindly answer the question for yourself because the question is SUBJECTIVE PER USER. Hence my earlier comment "it's a bogus question to which there is no finite answer". That all said I'll go out on a limb here and suggest that (for you) there is no unambiguous benefit just because you keep asking the question. I'm sure I'm on really shaky ground there, but meh.
1. Yes. It had the ability to use the old, offline builder, so portability wise, it worked fine.
2.Windows XP. It worked fine.
3. I pretty much use it at home, so my internet(broadband, over wireless) access was fine before. Now, because of the way it works, the new CB is extremely slow.
5. I really want a quick, functional GUI. Graphics could impress me less if it's not intuitive and quick.
6. The side not towards a wall.
7. What day is it?
8. No. It's black. the scattering of light makes it appear blue. Also, the color Mauve does not exist.
So, now that I've answered your silly questionairre, can you tell me what the benefit of the new character builder is to me?
What is the unambiguous benefit, for us, for us the existing users to the Character Builder being exclusively online?
If you could kindly fill out the following questionnaire we will gladly answer the question for you:
1. Do you own a laptop?
2. What OS(es) do you use?
3. What sort of internet access do you have in the various locations where you like to use the CB?
4. Is your current game using Dark Sun or Essentials material?
5. How much do you care about the GUI (pretty is better or functional and scr*w the graphics)?
6. Which side of bed do you get out on?
7. What is your favorite color?
8. Is the sky blue?
I hope I've made my point, but in case I didn't....kindly answer the question for yourself because the question is SUBJECTIVE PER USER. Hence my earlier comment "it's a bogus question to which there is no finite answer". That all said I'll go out on a limb here and suggest that (for you) there is no unambiguous benefit just because you keep asking the question. I'm sure I'm on really shaky ground there, but meh.
This is not subjective. It is in point of fact qualitative and quantitative. But just to humor you, here are my answers:
1. Do you own a laptop?
No, but I use one to DM sessions for my players. And the other DMs I play with use laptops to run their sessions.
2. What OS(es) do you use?
It's a Mac with a Windows Virtual Machine
3. What sort of internet access do you have in the various locations where you like to use the CB?
WiFi at the table and a PC at home
4. Is your current game using Dark Sun or Essentials material?
Yes! But the content in the online character builder has nothing to do with the unambiguous benefits of the character builder. If they chose to release the content to the old builder then I would have Dark Sun / Essentials. If they chose to release to an online builder that wasn't buggy and pre-alpha I'd have access to the characters.
It's like saying, upon taking issue with a format change in a newspaper where things become hard to read or parse, "yeah, but it printed today's news!"
5. How much do you care about the GUI (pretty is better or functional and scr*w the graphics)?
I care about good UI design quite a bit. I could tell you as things current stand if I product I was working on had the UI of the online character builder it would not make certification through TRCs or TCRs. You can have pretty and functional.
6. Which side of bed do you get out on?
Right
7. What is your favorite color?
Green
8. Is the sky blue?
On a clear day, due to Rayleigh scattering, yes!
So, now that I've answered your silly questionairre, can you tell me what the benefit of the new character builder is to me?
It was silly on purpose. It was meant to illustrate that the specific question being asked is subjective.
This is not subjective. It is in point of fact qualitative and quantitative.
But it's not a list of "unambiguous benefits". Perhaps our grammar fu has failed.
What is the unambiguous benefit, for us, for us the existing users to the Character Builder being exclusively online?
So, in order for something to be a benefit it has to be better than something else. Since we already have an offline builder we have to compare features. Once we start comparing features we're going to make judgments about what features are more important to (better for) us (individually). Our current usage also impacts this comparison (noted in the first 4 questions I posed) as these factors have an impact on the relative value of some features, making them either more or less worthwhile to have. Perhaps what you were asking for all along was just a feature list. If that was the case though, the question was very poorly worded to get such a response.
I see the lack of offline use as more detrimental to players than beneficial. I am sure plenty disagree but I would have to hear a cogent argument to sway me.
The point some are trying to make is that it being online is of no true benefit to anyone but WotC. The old builder allows what, five downloads per account.? Does anyone need it on more than that? There are plenty of gaming groups like mine that bring laptops to game in an enviroment that does not have internet access like our FLGS. To them this is a huge loss of utility and I can understand the disappointment. It doesn't matter what fancy bells and whistles that are added to the online builder if it can't be used in game.
I see the lack of offline use as more detrimental to players than beneficial. I am sure plenty disagree but I would have to hear a cogent argument to sway me.
What I have said repeatedly is that whether or not online only is a benefit to any individual person varies based on their situation (many factors). Your group has laptops. Now imagine if you didn't. You and djordi are both projecting your personal situations and making the assertion that everyone is just as affected as you are when that is simply not true. Take a step back and look at my first and third questions. They speak directly to the issue of "online only" and whether or not it is a benefit. There is no one blanket answer that applies to "everyone".
For me personally: I am totally unaffected by this change. I have a laptop, but I don't take it with me. When/where I use the CB I have a dedicated internet connection. I could start talking about "the future" and what benefits "might" happen but that's not relevant to the discussion. That's not a benefit "right now".
Since the CB has not updated every single month (and will likely not update every month in the future). WOTC noted that subscribers would not pay until there was a confirmed update as they could still access their characters offline.
But now....If you don't subscribe..you do not have access to your character.
Profit for them.
As for the benefit to us (over the offline CB) ?
There is none.
P.S. All this assumes the online CB begins working correctly, If not the discussions should change from "Where is the benefit?" to "Why is there loss?"
1. Do you own a laptop?
Yes
2. What OS(es) do you use?
XP, Windows 7, Fedora, BSD
3. What sort of internet access do you have in the various locations where you like to use the CB?
Wifi, Wired, and Are you freaking kidding me no internet out here in the boonies!!
4. Is your current game using Dark Sun or Essentials material?
Dark Sun
5. How much do you care about the GUI (pretty is better or functional and scr*w the graphics)?
Make it useable, forget the pretties
6. Which side of bed do you get out on?
depends on the day
7. What is your favorite color?
blood red
8. Is the sky blue?
nope
What I have said repeatedly is that whether or not online only is a benefit to any individual person varies based on their situation (many factors). Your group has laptops. Now imagine if you didn't. You and djordi are both projecting your personal situations and making the assertion that everyone is just as affected as you are when that is simply not true. Take a step back and look at my first and third questions. They speak directly to the issue of "online only" and whether or not it is a benefit. There is no one blanket answer that applies to "everyone".
For me personally: I am totally unaffected by this change. I have a laptop, but I don't take it with me. When/where I use the CB I have a dedicated internet connection. I could start talking about "the future" and what benefits "might" happen but that's not relevant to the discussion. That's not a benefit "right now".
Ok, let me rephrase. for people like my group, online only is not a benefit, to whom would it be a benefit?
Ok, let me rephrase. for people like my group, online only is not a benefit, to whom would it be a benefit?
Why does it matter? Is your decision to have or not have DDI based on benefits to someone besides yourself? To again quote myself.... "In the end it only matters if the product you are purchasing is worth the cost. Other questions may be interesting, but irrelevant."
Anyone else? Anyone at all?
Ok, let me rephrase. for people like my group, online only is not a benefit, to whom would it be a benefit?
It benefits the player who doesn't have a laptop. Now he can access the builder at a friend's house (remember, installing the old CB on your friend's computers was in violation of the EULA, even if almost everyone did it anyways).
Ok, let me rephrase. for people like my group, online only is not a benefit, to whom would it be a benefit?
It benefits the player who doesn't have a laptop. Now he can access the builder at a friend's house (remember, installing the old CB on your friend's computers was in violation of the EULA, even if almost everyone did it anyways).
It still is.
The EULA still limits you to using the Character Builder on one computer.
They probably just need to change that... probably.
It benefits the player who doesn't have a laptop. Now he can access the builder at a friend's house (remember, installing the old CB on your friend's computers was in violation of the EULA, even if almost everyone did it anyways).
Ah, ok, a valid point. I have a few rebutts.
1. If the friend also plays he either has the CB himself or
2. will be more than happy to use yours, which I am sure is a violation but that is just words as it is ultimately un-enforceable.
3. If the friend doesn't play then I guess he doesn't mind having silverlight downloaded.
In any case the subset of people that would find this a benefit is probably no larger, and possibly smaller than those who find it a detriment.
I just want WotC to admit that the change is for purely financial reasons and in no way benefits the player to any real extent. They won't do that, so I rant.
It benefits the player who doesn't have a laptop. Now he can access the builder at a friend's house (remember, installing the old CB on your friend's computers was in violation of the EULA, even if almost everyone did it anyways).
Ah, ok, a valid point. I have a few rebutts.
1. If the friend also plays he either has the CB himself or
2. will be more than happy to use yours, which I am sure is a violation but that is just words as it is ultimately un-enforceable.
3. If the friend doesn't play then I guess he doesn't mind having silverlight downloaded.
In any case the subset of people that would find this a benefit is probably no larger, and possibly smaller than those who find it a detriment.
I just want WotC to admit that the change is for purely financial reasons and in no way benefits the player to any real extent. They won't do that, so I rant.
Don't get me wrong, I agree that the change was entirely for financial reasons (or at least almost entirely). That doesn't mean there isn't some subset of users where the online "feature" actually is an improvement.
Don't get me wrong, I agree that the change was entirely for financial reasons (or at least almost entirely). That doesn't mean there isn't some subset of users where the online "feature" actually is an improvement.
oh I can admit that, but from my experience that subset is going to be much smaller than the subset that is hindered by the switch.
I don't use the CB to be honest. I just have hated WotC's business practices since 4e was released (despite liking the game itself). I wonder how much HASBRO stock you need to be kept in the loop?
(OK, I'll stop playing Devil's advocate now).
It's my favorite feature so far.
Here's a benefit that I make use of: The ability to save characters on the cloud means that I don't have to carry my characters around on a thumbdrive.
It's my favorite feature so far.
The problem there for me as DM is that I have 4 different campaigns running and about 32 players sprinkled around the 4. I keep their character sheet files so that I can reference them when building encounters and treasure parcels. Having a 20 character limit is not an option. Now if there was a supported export/import feature, I wouldn't have an issue with that aspect.
Hmmmmm. McCloud... There can be only 20!
I especially hope we can make homebrew and share it that way. Can you imagine liking a homebrew class you read online and then one click and it's available in your builder? That alone would be worth the price of admission.
Here's a benefit that I make use of: The ability to save characters on the cloud means that I don't have to carry my characters around on a thumbdrive.
It's my favorite feature so far.
I would rather have the characters on my computer and only on my computer but that is just me I guess.
That was the request I made in the feature request thread. My sincere hope is that this is where they're going with this online stuff.
I especially hope we can make homebrew and share it that way. Can you imagine liking a homebrew class you read online and then one click and it's available in your builder? That alone would be worth the price of admission.
Yeah, definitely! And imagine when DM's have a great method to share skill challenges, monsters, maps, etc.
Just being able to share resources with each other is far more productive and inspiring than the utilities themselves.
iplay4e is nice for playing your character at the table or on a pbp game but it's not really designed as a character storage system afaict.
If anyone of you think that is cheap you are fooling yourself.
So far their little alpha software has added no functionality at all. A mac user could virtualize windows with ease and use the old CB with much less problems and more functionality then what the alpha of the online CB is providing us.
I actually really dislike the interface for iplay4e. I could never get it to work right for some reason. In any event, in order to modify a character I had to redownload it and (this I guess is the important part) install the CB on the pc I was using (for instance my work computer) and then load the character there.
iplay4e is nice for playing your character at the table or on a pbp game but it's not really designed as a character storage system afaict.
But it does mean you don't have to carry the characters on a thumb drive.
In all honesty, what does it say about iplay4e that I would rather carry my character on a thumbdrive than use it.
The only people seeing benefits are the diehard Wotc fans who'll never complain and will report my post as soon they see it.
Online CB is a major fiasco. It's Gleemax 2.
touche.
In all honesty, what does it say about iplay4e that I would rather carry my character on a thumbdrive than use it.
I tended to use it as a quick way for my players to share a character with me more than cloud storage of my own characters (don't need cloud storage with a laptop). It's not perfect, but it has some uses.
Here's a benefit that I make use of: The ability to save characters on the cloud means that I don't have to carry my characters around on a thumbdrive.
It's my favorite feature so far.
I would rather have the characters on my computer and only on my computer but that is just me I guess.
It isn't just you.
What.... is your favorite color?
Blue.. no, what, yellooooooo.. Aaaruugggghhh!!!
Ok, let me rephrase. for people like my group, online only is not a benefit, to whom would it be a benefit?
It benefits the player who doesn't have a laptop. Now he can access the builder at a friend's house (remember, installing the old CB on your friend's computers was in violation of the EULA, even if almost everyone did it anyways).
It still is.
The EULA still limits you to using the Character Builder on one computer.
They probably just need to change that... probably.
WAIT
LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT
You mean to tell me that WOTC IS IN VIOLATION OF THEIR OWN FRIGGIN EULA?????
ROFLMAO
That is how I see it, anyways.
Aye. I like the cloud. I just wish we could flag our characters as public so others could view them.
Hmmm, imagine a world where an uprated offline CB (built in the time saved not making the online one) had the option to save to and load from the cloud if the user was online (already checked when checking for updates). With the option to share characters.
Now, that would be a product to be proud of!
I like the questions...
What.... is your favorite color?
Blue.. no, what, yellooooooo.. Aaaruugggghhh!!!
What is your name?
What is your quest?
What is your favorite color?
What is your name?
My name is Inigo Montoya
What is your quest?
You killed my father. Prepare to die
What is your favorite color?
Red..... no blue. AAHHHHHHHHHhhhhhhhhh....