At lease you *can* run it with vmFusion or whatever. Also, since you've been a D&D player for 25 years, maybe you remember the character builder which was going to be released by WotC with 3.0 (it was Windows only) and the eTools from CMP (also Windows only.) So, really, in those 25 years, your Mac has never been welcome, except through emulation. What has prompted you to feel less welcome now?
In all reality, once they get the bugs and stuff sorted out, they might come out with a Mac compatible one (or if Microsoft would port their .net framework to the Mac, it would be even sooner.) So, just use vmFusion for now and give it time.
Also, they've said from the get-go that the tools would be PC only...
WotC isn't singling YOU out as a customer, they're simply following what market research told them was the best course of action - which was to focus their time, money, and efforts on development for Windows.
You also make the curious statement about finding another RPG that makes you feel more welcome. Do you have one in mind that has made a Macintosh based character generator?
Keep in mind that you, for reasons of your own, chose the Macintosh platform. I find it unlikely that you made that investment without being aware that the bulk of commercial software, past, present, and (forseeable) future simply doesn't support that platform
WotC isn't singling YOU out as a customer, they're simply following what market research told them was the best course of action - which was to focus their time, money, and efforts on development for Windows.
You also make the curious statement about finding another RPG that makes you feel more welcome. Do you have one in mind that has made a Macintosh based character generator?
Actually, the current marketing information show that over 50% of high-end laptops sold are macs. It's only cheapo and wired computers that are PC dominated. And in our current economy you can see that of the major computer suppliers only one has said that they do not forsee sales dropping off a cliff. Hint. It's not Dell. Hint #2, it begins with "A"
I was also surprised to see that Wizards was not doing a web-based system. I mean -- it's not like the character builder as we now see it would be at all difficult to build as a web-app. Pretty much all my work applications are web-based and those which aren't run just as well on Macs and Linux boxes. It *is* the way the world is moving, so to see Wizards fail to move that way is disappointing.
As you say, market research told you not to waste time on mac users. Is it surprising, then, that mac users might think the same way about you?
Turning your opening statement around: You, for reasons of marketing, chose to ignore the Macintosh platform. I find it unlikely that you made that investment without being aware that the bulk of non-PC users simply won't see that as being friendly to them. The fact that the market is moving rapidly away from desktop PC apps is something your marketing missed. Hopefully -- because I DO hope you succeed -- you will get enough PC owners to buy your stuff so that as that segment dwindles you can fund making a modern software system. But as the original poster said, until that point, statements that "yeah, we just don't think you mac users are worth the effort" is never going to sound friendly.
I understand your marketing people. I happen to think they're not totally with it on current trends, but hey, these things happen. But blaming mac users for not buying a PC is a little silly. I'd think of a different response next time ...
This character builder needs to be able to run off a Mac without having to run vmFusion or some such... really, make it web-based and OS independent. I have been a D&D player for 25 years or so now, but this is the kind of thing that makes me consider quitting this RPG for another one where I feel more welcome.
Eight now, WOtC is playing the odds that is going to bring them more money and customers. The userbase that has a windows-based PC is much, much higher than that that currently uses Macs. Thus, it only makes sense for them to aim towards the market that will bring them the most money. Once they have the bugs worked out, and the program is running well, I do fully expect them to work on porting it over to Mac computers. However, until then, it looks like it will require some sort of Windows Emulator for Macs and *nix based machines.
Actually, the current marketing information show that over 50% of high-end laptops sold are macs.
You need to be careful when reading marketing info. It is mostly spin. Like the info you provided above.
You know how they decide if it is a "high-end" machine?? By the price. And seeing how Mac generally cost a significant amount more than PCs, it appears that the 50% is a meaningful number, when it actually isn't. The number of PCs available (not sold, but simply available for purchase) at the higher price ranges favoured by Macs is much, much lower than the number of macs available at comparable prices. This isn't due to popularity, it is simply due to the fact that PCs simply don't cost as much as macs.
Vista is not horrible, just full of little things that make you realize how great Macs are. Using Boot Camp (and perhaps holding your nose) means that you CAN run the software.
I doubt seriously if it will ever be ported to Mac.
Let's face it, it's a fairly simple program (undoubtedly the biggest task was getting together the format for the data) basically a database. The game table is much more complicated and I think it's the wrong direction for D&D anyway. I don't expect it next year or really ever.
None of this stuff is ever gonna be Mac is my guess.
Keep in mind that you, for reasons of your own, chose the Macintosh platform. I find it unlikely that you made that investment without being aware that the bulk of commercial software, past, present, and (forseeable) future simply doesn't support that platform
WotC isn't singling YOU out as a customer, they're simply following what market research told them was the best course of action - which was to focus their time, money, and efforts on development for Windows.
You also make the curious statement about finding another RPG that makes you feel more welcome. Do you have one in mind that has made a Macintosh based character generator?
Yeh what WolfStar here said for the most part, although there is something a little annoying about his pulpit spiel.
Your options (the way I see it)
1. Use what you have at the moment and run VMWare on it for DnDI.
2. If you need a PC for mid-range gaming buy a new iMac and just run Bootcamp on it. (and VMware for that matter)
3. If you need a PC for high-range gaming then buy or build a dedicated rig.
But seriously don't bring the whiny "I'll go elsewhere" argument in here. WoTC never said they would support native Macintosh development, and you just put another stereotypical post out there for people to pick on.
Having said that... Macs RULE!
Get a PC. Do you complain when popular games come out which won't run on your Mac? Sure do. Why won't they make them run on your Mac? Because there are more gamers with PCs than with Macs. Get over it. It's the way things are.
At lease you *can* run it with vmFusion or whatever. Also, since you've been a D&D player for 25 years, maybe you remember the character builder which was going to be released by WotC with 3.0 (it was Windows only) and the eTools from CMP (also Windows only.) So, really, in those 25 years, your Mac has never been welcome, except through emulation. What has prompted you to feel less welcome now?
In all reality, once they get the bugs and stuff sorted out, they might come out with a Mac compatible one (or if Microsoft would port their .net framework to the Mac, it would be even sooner.) So, just use vmFusion for now and give it time.
Also, they've said from the get-go that the tools would be PC only...
Forget PC. I had a few in my house, and have given them away - I hate the platform. This is my choice, you are allowed your choice. I am a casual gamer - and I only buy games that are out on Mac. And the programs you mentioned... yeah, I have beta copies of them on disc... irritated me then too.
My intention was not to start a "Mac vs PC" flame thread - people from both camps can pull out what they think are a multitude of facts saying one platform better than the other. I don't take to the "which platform is more prevalent" since there are so many shades now... Do you only count computers purchases in the last year? Do you count ones bought on eBay? How do you count multi-computer houses? Apple has been posting giant profits many more consecutive quarters - and increasing in sales volume compared to itself year over year - much more so than any of the big PC makers... no matter how you spin it, Apple users are a bigger voice now - and to ignore us is to risk pushing us away.
There are a few third party programs out there that will run on Mac... and I for one will gladly 'vote with my dollars' and buy them. It sounds like Wizards may still be on the fence about 3rd party developers - which means fewer people are willing to risk anything developing for D&D... so I might go with something else. For me, I would rather switch to a different game that has no computer software support at all simply on principal... and if I am inclined to switch to something different - there is a good chance my group will switch with me.
Not that your response really matters - other than it brings attention to this thread, which is really the whole point. So thanks!
Yeh what WolfStar here said for the most part, although there is something a little annoying about his pulpit spiel.
Your options (the way I see it)
1. Use what you have at the moment and run VMWare on it for DnDI.
2. If you need a PC for mid-range gaming buy a new iMac and just run Bootcamp on it. (and VMware for that matter)
3. If you need a PC for high-range gaming then buy or build a dedicated rig.
But seriously don't bring the whiny "I'll go elsewhere" argument in here. WoTC never said they would support native Macintosh development, and you just put another stereotypical post out there for people to pick on.
Having said that... Macs RULE!
Heh - I just figured it needs to be brought up now and then... since if you don't mention it, the developers may not be aware of the need.
Thanks for putting your 2 cents in!
All current Macs run windows. I bought Windows Vista and using Apple's Boot Camp installed it and am running the CB without issues.
Vista is not horrible, just full of little things that make you realize how great Macs are. Using Boot Camp (and perhaps holding your nose) means that you CAN run the software.
I doubt seriously if it will ever be ported to Mac.
Let's face it, it's a fairly simple program (undoubtedly the biggest task was getting together the format for the data) basically a database. The game table is much more complicated and I think it's the wrong direction for D&D anyway. I don't expect it next year or really ever.
None of this stuff is ever gonna be Mac is my guess.
Yeah, I put BootCamp on my main machine (a Mac Pro) a year or two ago, and never found myself booting over to it. I actually put it on there because I bought all of the software available from ProFantasy (which is PC only) just because I thought their software was that good, and I wanted to support them with my dollars. Problem is, after installing the software, I hated mucking around in Windows so much that I never jumped over. I have since taken Boot Camp off of my machine, and I could consider doing vmWare Fusion - I'm sure it will work as you have already said it will... but I still feel like this post needed to be made... I know that there will always be PC bigots out there who feel vindicated in some way by verbally bashing the Mac platform, but there are a lot of Mac users out there, and a growing number of us, and even if we can get programs like this to work via one additional layer of software... we would like to see our platform supported fully.
Eight now, WOtC is playing the odds that is going to bring them more money and customers. The userbase that has a windows-based PC is much, much higher than that that currently uses Macs. Thus, it only makes sense for them to aim towards the market that will bring them the most money. Once they have the bugs worked out, and the program is running well, I do fully expect them to work on porting it over to Mac computers. However, until then, it looks like it will require some sort of Windows Emulator for Macs and *nix based machines.
You need to be careful when reading marketing info. It is mostly spin. Like the info you provided above.
You know how they decide if it is a "high-end" machine?? By the price. And seeing how Mac generally cost a significant amount more than PCs, it appears that the 50% is a meaningful number, when it actually isn't. The number of PCs available (not sold, but simply available for purchase) at the higher price ranges favoured by Macs is much, much lower than the number of macs available at comparable prices. This isn't due to popularity, it is simply due to the fact that PCs simply don't cost as much as macs.
When you say the user base is much much higher, I wonder how that can be fully appreciated... since the software provided has almost always been PC-only... that is to say, if you were to look at the userbase, you have already singled out Mac-only users.
I don't know what their numbers are... maybe they don't make it publicly available, but my guess is the percentage of the user-base that would prefer to use a Mac over a PC for this type of thing would be similar to World of Warcraft. My expectation is there would still be more PC users, but when I used to play (before kicking the habit - 18 months sober now thank you very much), I was surprised at the significant number of people who had both platforms at home, and preferred playing WoW on the Mac.
I agree most marketing info is spin... on both sides. I also don't buy the "Macs are much more expensive" argument - for every article stating they are more expensive, I can find a compelling one that says they are not... not that really pertains to this thread anyway - in the end (per my post above) Apple appears to be increasing the rate of sales more than other computer companies in the last decade or so... which is why I feel justified in making a post saying Macs should be more supported with programs such as this.
Keep in mind that you, for reasons of your own, chose the Macintosh platform. I find it unlikely that you made that investment without being aware that the bulk of commercial software, past, present, and (forseeable) future simply doesn't support that platform
WotC isn't singling YOU out as a customer, they're simply following what market research told them was the best course of action - which was to focus their time, money, and efforts on development for Windows.
You also make the curious statement about finding another RPG that makes you feel more welcome. Do you have one in mind that has made a Macintosh based character generator?
Off the top of my head, PC Gen is a great Character Generator. Of course, if Wizards is going to be hostile to 3rd party developers, who is going to want to make 4E anything until they are sure Wizards is not going to sink them? For me, I could go back to 3.5 with little remorse... heck, there are still things I liked better about 2E.
If I was to walk away from 4E, I would likely either go back to one of those... or go with Paizo's Pathfinder... maybe Warhammer... really any platform that does not make me feel specifically put out on the street for being a Mac user.
I would even be fine with "we only have limited dollars, and while we would love to develop for all platforms, we only can hire 2 programmers who don't know how to program in a way that allows access for non-windows users. We appreciate your business and hope that we will someday be able to provide support for your platform of choice as well."
Instead it feels more like Mac users are specifically being snubbed - I say this having talked with a D&D game designer in a convention in the past (who was presenting some 3E material before 3E came out) - noting he was using a Mac, I asked him about Wizards and being Mac friendly - to which his response was he did not know why, but there seems to be some bias against Macs engrained in the Wizards culture.
Hence, part of the reason why I felt I needed to post - if only to give a brief reminder that there are users out there that not only want support on the Mac Platform, but who lose joy in the game when they feel like they are being shunted.
Eight now, WOtC is playing the odds that is going to bring them more money and customers. The userbase that has a windows-based PC is much, much higher than that that currently uses Macs.
Indeed they are, but given that a cross platform engine would have given them access to the whole market, I'm kind of confused by the decision.
Heck as they mention in the current Podcast, they could have designed it to also be mobile device friendly as well.... because if you want to talk the future of computing it is in mobile devices.
Off the top of my head, PC Gen is a great Character Generator. Of course, if Wizards is going to be hostile to 3rd party developers, who is going to want to make 4E anything until they are sure Wizards is not going to sink them? For me, I could go back to 3.5 with little remorse... heck, there are still things I liked better about 2E.
If I was to walk away from 4E, I would likely either go back to one of those... or go with Paizo's Pathfinder... maybe Warhammer... really any platform that does not make me feel specifically put out on the street for being a Mac user.
I would even be fine with "we only have limited dollars, and while we would love to develop for all platforms, we only can hire 2 programmers who don't know how to program in a way that allows access for non-windows users. We appreciate your business and hope that we will someday be able to provide support for your platform of choice as well."
Instead it feels more like Mac users are specifically being snubbed - I say this having talked with a D&D game designer in a convention in the past (who was presenting some 3E material before 3E came out) - noting he was using a Mac, I asked him about Wizards and being Mac friendly - to which his response was he did not know why, but there seems to be some bias against Macs engrained in the Wizards culture.
Hence, part of the reason why I felt I needed to post - if only to give a brief reminder that there are users out there that not only want support on the Mac Platform, but who lose joy in the game when they feel like they are being shunted.
It's worth noting that many people inside WotC are Mac fans. Scott Rouse, who I believe is D&D Brand Manager (I forget his exact title, so I may be off) is a Mac user, in fact, and his R&D presentation at DDXP earlier this year was projected off his Mac.
Someone else (Noonan?) recently posted a Dragon article on how to manage all the files for your campaign, and the screenshots he provided were from his Mac.
So it isn't a matter of Mac being snubbed, per se (though, as someone with a Mac in my home, I can see how it would feel that way) - it's a matter of having limited funds, and unfortunately not being able to please everyone with those funds.
Windows, for most companies, is still the "best bet" for successful software - it still has the broadest installed support base, period.
Please note, that I strongly support the idea that Wizards should provided cross-platform support ASAP (out of the gate would have been nice, but it just wasn't in the cards, apparently).
My post was more to peel away some of what I felt to be hyperbole. Wizards isn't calling you up to say "HA! We don't want your dirty MAC money!" It's simply an issue that they've chosen (at this time) to focus on the broader Windows market. The unfortunate side effect of that is that it does leave some customers out, but they had their reasons for this choice.
By all means, keep reminding them that there are Mac and Linux fans out there - all of whom have chosen their platforms for their own reasons. I, personally, would just ask that you be careful how you deliver the message. You don't want to appear overly emotional in your request, or else it (unfortunately) can be easy to "write you off" as someone who can't be reasoned with.
Actually, the current marketing information show that over 50% of high-end laptops sold are macs.
Actually, that is based on price. Macs cost more for the same performance. Macs still only make up ~3-4% of personal computers in use. Ergo, not large enough mkt share to develop for.
If someone wants a PC app to run on a Mac maybe they should be willing to pay for the added dev costs?
It's worth noting that many people inside WotC are Mac fans. Scott Rouse, who I believe is D&D Brand Manager (I forget his exact title, so I may be off) is a Mac user, in fact, and his R&D presentation at DDXP earlier this year was projected off his Mac.
Someone else (Noonan?) recently posted a Dragon article on how to manage all the files for your campaign, and the screenshots he provided were from his Mac.
So it isn't a matter of Mac being snubbed, per se (though, as someone with a Mac in my home, I can see how it would feel that way) - it's a matter of having limited funds, and unfortunately not being able to please everyone with those funds.
Windows, for most companies, is still the "best bet" for successful software - it still has the broadest installed support base, period.
Please note, that I strongly support the idea that Wizards should provided cross-platform support ASAP (out of the gate would have been nice, but it just wasn't in the cards, apparently).
My post was more to peel away some of what I felt to be hyperbole. Wizards isn't calling you up to say "HA! We don't want your dirty MAC money!" It's simply an issue that they've chosen (at this time) to focus on the broader Windows market. The unfortunate side effect of that is that it does leave some customers out, but they had their reasons for this choice.
By all means, keep reminding them that there are Mac and Linux fans out there - all of whom have chosen their platforms for their own reasons. I, personally, would just ask that you be careful how you deliver the message. You don't want to appear overly emotional in your request, or else it (unfortunately) can be easy to "write you off" as someone who can't be reasoned with.
Thanks Wolfstar, your post eases my angst somewhat!
The point is that if this had been developed dual platform it would have impacted a larger customer base. Much bigger than 3%-4% increase I'd wager.
So we can hope that they eventually see the light and release a Mac version.
In the meantime CharBuilder will be the sole reason i that i have a PC partition on my Mac. Every game/program i own (which is alot) runs on both Mac and PC except for CharBuilder.
My PC will keep its resting place as a doorstop/end table for my office.
Raising awareness to the actual number of Mac users in the RPG market WILL help. Keep the thread rolling.
Peace.
Actually, that is based on price. Macs cost more for the same performance. Macs still only make up ~3-4% of personal computers in use. Ergo, not large enough mkt share to develop for.
If someone wants a PC app to run on a Mac maybe they should be willing to pay for the added dev costs?
As I made in an earlier post, market-share I think is a misguided value... what does one really mean when they say personal computers in use? If I have a work PC and a home Mac, is that a wash? Is it still a wash if I use my work PC 80% of the time? I don't have a work PC... I now use a Mac for my work machine. What if I use 3 Macs on a regular basis, and my wife uses one on a regular bases... does that count as 4? What about the MacBook we have plugged into our TV to watch movies on? Does that count? What about the computer I have strapped to my treadmill? Does my house count as 6 Macs 0 PCs? 15 years ago when a household pretty much had one computer at any given time "market share" was pretty easy to calculate.... now I think it is a bit more nebulous.
For what it is worth, I am always willing to pay a premium to have things supported on a Mac... but I know that not every Mac user feels that way. Heck, I have contacted developers with people who have been able to make Mac installers of their software pro bono... took all of 1 hour.
Agree with the OP. I would love for this to run on Mac. I don't think the argument here is which platform is better. To each his own i say.
The point is that if this had been developed dual platform it would have impacted a larger customer base. Much bigger than 3%-4% increase I'd wager.
So we can hope that they eventually see the light and release a Mac version.
In the meantime CharBuilder will be the sole reason i that i have a PC partition on my Mac. Every game/program i own (which is alot) runs on both Mac and PC except for CharBuilder.
My PC will keep its resting place as a doorstop/end table for my office.
I agree... my guess is it would be closer to the Mac mix for WoW.
As I made in an earlier post, market-share I think is a misguided value... what does one really mean when they say personal computers in use?
In this forum I am talking about HOME computers in use. I am in the s/w bus. I sell/mtk to Home, SOHO, SMB & Enterprise.
So, over 90% of computers used by individuals at home are Windows.
Anything else you'd like to know about this market?
In this forum I am talking about HOME computers in use. I am in the s/w bus. I sell/mtk to Home, SOHO, SMB & Enterprise.
So, over 90% of computers used by individuals at home are Windows.
Anything else you'd like to know about this market?
Yeah... so if a home has a mix of computers... does each computer count as "1"? If I have a Mac Pro with Boot Camp on it to run this software... does my computer count as both a PC and a Mac? If no, how can you tell? If yes, then the % of Macs is masked by users who are working around the lack of Mac support, hence the demand is greater than expected.
Thank you everyone!
Yeah... so if a home has a mix of computers... does each computer count as "1"?
When you figure a percentage. You total all machines in use by type. A PC with windows as the O/S counts as Windows. A MAC counts as one MAC.
When you figure a percentage. You total all machines in use by type. A PC with windows as the O/S counts as Windows. A MAC counts as one MAC.
And a Mac running windows?
And a Mac running windows?
That would be a mac. A Mac is defined as H/W from Apple running one of its Mac O/Ses.
Now, if the Apple OS had been stripped out and isn't on the machine it would be a Windows machine.
Actually, the current marketing information show that over 50% of high-end laptops sold are macs. It's only cheapo and wired computers that are PC dominated. And in our current economy you can see that of the major computer suppliers only one has said that they do not forsee sales dropping off a cliff. Hint. It's not Dell. Hint #2, it begins with "A"
I was also surprised to see that Wizards was not doing a web-based system. I mean -- it's not like the character builder as we now see it would be at all difficult to build as a web-app. Pretty much all my work applications are web-based and those which aren't run just as well on Macs and Linux boxes. It *is* the way the world is moving, so to see Wizards fail to move that way is disappointing.
As you say, market research told you not to waste time on mac users. Is it surprising, then, that mac users might think the same way about you?
Turning your opening statement around: You, for reasons of marketing, chose to ignore the Macintosh platform. I find it unlikely that you made that investment without being aware that the bulk of non-PC users simply won't see that as being friendly to them. The fact that the market is moving rapidly away from desktop PC apps is something your marketing missed. Hopefully -- because I DO hope you succeed -- you will get enough PC owners to buy your stuff so that as that segment dwindles you can fund making a modern software system. But as the original poster said, until that point, statements that "yeah, we just don't think you mac users are worth the effort" is never going to sound friendly.
I understand your marketing people. I happen to think they're not totally with it on current trends, but hey, these things happen. But blaming mac users for not buying a PC is a little silly. I'd think of a different response next time ...
In re-reading this, I'd like to make it clear - I don't work for WotC in any capacity. While I volunteer a little of my time in these forums to keep things on-topic, I'm not in any way, shape, or form a part of WotC (though, I'd be happy to give them my resume if they asked. ;) ).
I also never blamed anyone for buying a mac. I simply pointed out that I find it unlikely that someone buying a Mac would be surprised to find that more resources are available for PCs than for Mac.
Frankly, I think this is the biggest weakness of the Mac platform. If/when more software options are available for Mac, I wonder what will become of Windows. The same could be said for Linux, mind, but Mac has one up on Linux - the appearance (true or not) of user-friendly stability.
I digress.
Thanks Wolfstar, your post eases my angst somewhat!
Then I've met my goal.
Glad I was able to give some perspective.That would be a mac. A Mac is defined as H/W from Apple running one of its Mac O/Ses.
Now, if the Apple OS had been stripped out and isn't on the machine it would be a Windows machine.
So the truth is that no one has any idea really then, because if you want to run Linux, you either hand build, or you buy a PC (counted as Windows) and trash the OS.
Windows claims 90% market share because 90% of "over the counter" sales have Windows bundled with them, would likely be a better way of looking at it.
Now I'm not going to deny that Windows is omnipresent, its certainly got a huge portion of the market, but its not like anyone is asking for the character builder to be done in some obscure code that only runs on Mac or Linux. People want cross-platform code; like web based, or java based. Not a .Net product, which is what we got, unfortunately. I ended up not getting use out of the Character Builder because it doesn't run on my primary machine, a Linux box.
So the truth is that no one has any idea really then, because if you want to run Linux, you either hand build, or you buy a PC (counted as Windows) and trash the OS.
No, the truth is that that there is analytic s/w that is run on websites that determines the OS of the visitor. There is also extensive survey & s/w sales analysis that is done. If you were familiar with the s/w industry you would know this already.
Over 90% of personal computers in use are windows machines.
No, the truth is that that there is analytic s/w that is run on websites that determines the OS of the visitor. There is also extensive survey & s/w sales analysis that is done. If you were familiar with the s/w industry you would know this already.
Over 90% of personal computers in use are windows machines.
OK.... this is a rat hole, that really does not pertain to the fact that there is a demand and desire for this software to be run on a Mac.
However, the logic you are basing this on is still fundamentally flawed. The reason why it is flawed is people are looking for a "quick" answer to what is the install base out there... and the logic you just stated does not fully grasp that. It makes the assumptions that not only do all computers out there connect to the internet, but they connect to the internet equally.
I am familiar with the s/w industry... I have been working in it for various companies for the last decade. What it boils down to is you can tell that 90% of computers on the internet at a given time, on average are Windows users... but that is NOT the same thing as saying 90% of computers out there are Windows boxes.
But then we live in a society that believes everything should be quickly and easily assigned a number - which is where most of the misconceptions come around.
Enough with the sniping at each other folks.
Mark Twain once said: There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Now I am not saying that anyone is lieing, just that anyone can pull statistics out of the air to support their position, so I am going to ask all sides to stop.
Yes, WotC is not currently developping their DDI tools for Macs that we know of. They have made the decision to aim for the PC market first. We don't, as of yet, know whether or not they plan on aiming at other OSes yet, but, assuming that the tools are a success, I think that they would be silly to not at least explore that possibility.
Takes off VCL Hat
Puts on VCL hat
Enough with the sniping at each other folks.
Mark Twain once said: There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Now I am not saying that anyone is lieing, just that anyone can pull statistics out of the air to support their position, so I am going to ask all sides to stop.
Yes, WotC is not currently developping their DDI tools for Macs that we know of. They have made the decision to aim for the PC market first. We don't, as of yet, know whether or not they plan on aiming at other OSes yet, but, assuming that the tools are a success, I think that they would be silly to not at least explore that possibility.
Takes off VCL Hat
Thank you!
This character builder needs to be able to run off a Mac without having to run vmFusion or some such... really, make it web-based and OS independent. I have been a D&D player for 25 years or so now, but this is the kind of thing that makes me consider quitting this RPG for another one where I feel more welcome.
Your presence in this Forum indicates that you're running the program now; do you see how that undermines your argument a bit?
It seems to me that there's a fundamental problem with arguing that WoTC needs to develop a Mac-specific version of the software when its being made by people all of howm have shown a ready willingness to take the extra step to get it to run on their machines anyway.
I suspect WoTC understands that any (semi-)serious Mac user has access to PC emulation software or already has it installed, rendering the development of a dedicated version of the program much less urgent.
"I am running the program fine right now, but you should make it easier for me!" doesn't sound the same the call to action that "My skills run off the page when I print my character sheet..." does. When people in this very thread are saying they've added emulation software SOLELY for the purpose of running this program, that's not a powerful incentive to rush to placate that supposedly irate user base.
-Lefty
Your presence in this Forum indicates that you're running the program now; do you see how that undermines your argument a bit?
It seems to me that there's a fundamental problem with arguing that WoTC needs to develop a Mac-specific version of the software when its being made by people all of howm have shown a ready willingness to take the extra step to get it to run on their machines anyway.
I suspect WoTC understands that any (semi-)serious Mac user has access to PC emulation software or already has it installed, rendering the development of a dedicated version of the program much less urgent.
"I am running the program fine right now, but you should make it easier for me!" doesn't sound the same the call to action that "My skills run off the page when I print my character sheet..." does. When people in this very thread are saying they've added emulation software SOLELY for the purpose of running this program, that's not a powerful incentive to rush to placate that supposedly irate user base.
-Lefty
Actually, no, I have not installed the program... I have only read about it and heard about it from others. I would love to use it - and would have already done so if it was OS independent (web-based) or there was a Mac version available.
Once again, the purpose of the thread is to call to attention the fact that there is demand for support of our platform. Don't put other people down just because we are voicing what we want... I don't go around saying what you think is important is less important than what I think is important.
Don't put other people down just because we are voicing what we want... I don't go around saying what you think is important is less important than what I think is important.
Not that your response really matters - other than it brings attention to this thread, which is really the whole point. So thanks!
"Now. Who said that? Rudolph? Rudolph's mama?" -- Scott Calvin, Santa Clause 3
Telling me that my response (what I think is important) doesn't matter, is the same as saying that my response (what I think is important) isn't important. So, you actually *do* go around saying that what I think is important is less important that what you think is important.
"Now. Who said that? Rudolph? Rudolph's mama?" -- Scott Calvin, Santa Clause 3
Telling me that my response (what I think is important) doesn't matter, is the same as saying that my response (what I think is important) isn't important. So, you actually *do* go around saying that what I think is important is less important that what you think is important.
I try to keep my statements generic - not directed at people, unless they are a response to something directed directly at me... like yours were. That's the difference. It's the difference between constructive and deconstructive discussion.
Get a PC. Do you complain when popular games come out which won't run on your Mac? Sure do. Why won't they make them run on your Mac? Because there are more gamers with PCs than with Macs. Get over it. It's the way things are.
Sure, but more and more games are available on the Mac. CoD4, WoW, Spore, are some recent ones.
At lease you *can* run it with vmFusion or whatever. Also, since you've been a D&D player for 25 years, maybe you remember the character builder which was going to be released by WotC with 3.0 (it was Windows only) and the eTools from CMP (also Windows only.) So, really, in those 25 years, your Mac has never been welcome, except through emulation. What has prompted you to feel less welcome now?
Not true. CMP also sold the datasets for PCGen, which runs happily on my Mac.
In all reality, once they get the bugs and stuff sorted out, they might come out with a Mac compatible one (or if Microsoft would port their .net framework to the Mac, it would be even sooner.) So, just use vmFusion for now and give it time.
Also, they've said from the get-go that the tools would be PC only...
I found it short sighted, that when WotC decided to build this new software from scratch in 2005/6/7 (?), they decided to use Windows-only technology, while it would have been a similar effort to build a cross-platform application from the start.
From most sources you see, Mac is at about 8-12% market share, but if I just look around me, I think it's much higher under the average DnD playing Geek population.
I don't think it's something WotC can change any more, as they are now very tied in with the Windows platform, but I think they've alienated easily 20%+ of their potential customers from the get go, while they could have developed the entire thing cross platform, without extra effort, if they had designed for it from the start.
It's not 1995 any more, cross platform developement has come a long way since then. As a developer working on cross-platform tools full time, I know there are mature solutions.
What I understood, is that they had some leftovers from the DnDO adventure that they thought they could warm up again fro the DDI was what made them go Windows only.
Sure, but more and more games are available on the Mac. CoD4, WoW, Spore, are some recent ones.
Not true. CMP also sold the datasets for PCGen, which runs happily on my Mac.
I found it short sighted, that when WotC decided to build this new software from scratch in 2005/6/7 (?), they decided to use Windows-only technology, while it would have been a similar effort to build a cross-platform application from the start.
From most sources you see, Mac is at about 8-12% market share, but if I just look around me, I think it's much higher under the average DnD playing Geek population.
I don't think it's something WotC can change any more, as they are now very tied in with the Windows platform, but I think they've alienated easily 20%+ of their potential customers from the get go, while they could have developed the entire thing cross platform, without extra effort, if they had designed for it from the start.
It's not 1995 any more, cross platform developement has come a long way since then. As a developer working on cross-platform tools full time, I know there are mature solutions.
Well spoken sir!
Actually, that is based on price. Macs cost more for the same performance. Macs still only make up ~3-4% of personal computers in use. Ergo, not large enough mkt share to develop for.
If someone wants a PC app to run on a Mac maybe they should be willing to pay for the added dev costs?
Be careful when you quote marketshare numbers ... the 3-4% number is decade old and those gartner PC numbers include cash registers and credit card processors which run DOS. They got their numbers based on DOS and Windows licenses sold since they 'must' go in a PC somewhere. Remember, Microsoft makes you buy a license whether you install it or not. Hence, those numbers have alwasys been misleading. Again, please be careful when you misquote numbers. And, you can get actual install base numbers: they're harder to come by, they cost more, and have higher uncertainties.
I suspect WoTC chose Windows because it's a 'safe' bet which requires little research (eg, planning & marketing cost). I'm sure someone did purchase the report which justified their decision. Another example is the window size assumption. The fixed window size precludes many laptops (especially those new mini-ones which are so popular at cons). Even a PC with 1024x768 that has a windows task bar would loose a few rows of pixels on the bottom. Just looks 'half' hearted. Screen size (actual) and pixel depth are all part of marketing. Some moderate technical marketing was done: don't know how much was that analytical.
All that being said. The tool is fun. I intend on using it with 'new' players for the gameday we run for locals at our local gameshop. Much more useable than pcgen (by far) and hero forge. It is the best of the limited ones I've played with. Running it in parallels is suboptimal, but it'll do. I'm more interested in WoTC's ability to (a) keep-up with their own content (b)continue improving (the still beta) product and (c) respond to userbase feedback in a proactive manner.
Be careful when you quote marketshare numbers ... the 3-4% number is decade old and those gartner PC numbers include cash registers and credit card processors which run DOS. They got their numbers based on DOS and Windows licenses sold since they 'must' go in a PC somewhere. Remember, Microsoft makes you buy a license whether you install it or not. Hence, those numbers have alwasys been misleading. Again, please be careful when you misquote numbers. And, you can get actual install base numbers: they're harder to come by, they cost more, and have higher uncertainties.
I suspect WoTC chose Windows because it's a 'safe' bet which requires little research (eg, planning & marketing cost). I'm sure someone did purchase the report which justified their decision. Another example is the window size assumption. The fixed window size precludes many laptops (especially those new mini-ones which are so popular at cons). Even a PC with 1024x768 that has a windows task bar would loose a few rows of pixels on the bottom. Just looks 'half' hearted. Screen size (actual) and pixel depth are all part of marketing. Some moderate technical marketing was done: don't know how much was that analytical.
All that being said. The tool is fun. I intend on using it with 'new' players for the gameday we run for locals at our local gameshop. Much more useable than pcgen (by far) and hero forge. It is the best of the limited ones I've played with. Running it in parallels is suboptimal, but it'll do. I'm more interested in WoTC's ability to (a) keep-up with their own content (b)continue improving (the still beta) product and (c) respond to userbase feedback in a proactive manner.
I have worked with a lot of software developers of various platforms. My guess is WotC decided to go PC-only because they had people in-house that already knew how to go that way and are not as familiar with how to develop cross-platform. It can be surprising how easy it is to make programs cross-platform now - in some cases a simple recompile - less than 5 minutes of programmer time, can make a program work on a Mac. This is not always the case, but have done it with d20Pro - works like a charm.
Be careful when you quote marketshare numbers ... the 3-4% number is decade old and those gartner PC numbers include cash registers and credit card processors which run DOS.
I don't rely on Gartner. Gartner comes to me for data.
No, the numbers I use are from our own extensive mkt research.
Windows is the main OS on about 93-94% of home PCs currently. Outside the home it varies by vertical market. K-12 is quite different than a company with similar seat count. For instance, there are a lot more K-12s running Novell (percentage wise) than companies. This is due to financial constraints.
We've seen a sharp decline in the EDU mkt for Apple in the last 15 years due to price difference between them & white box, available s/w, etc., etc.
I don't rely on Gartner. Gartner comes to me for data.
No, the numbers I use are from our own extensive mkt research.
Windows is the main OS on about 93-94% of home PCs currently. Outside the home it varies by vertical market. K-12 is quite different than a company with similar seat count. For instance, there are a lot more K-12s running Novell (percentage wise) than companies. This is due to financial constraints.
We've seen a sharp decline in the EDU mkt for Apple in the last 15 years due to price difference between them & white box, available s/w, etc., etc.
Until you can show where you data comes from... you are not going to convince anyone to change their mind... in fact, even then I doubt it. I can see statistics that show anything people want. I have seen many sources showing how while 10-5 years ago, Macs were 'losing ground' in the education market, in the last 5 years, it is growing considerably.
Again, I don't think this is a portion of this thread worth pursing since thus far, people can get numbers to support anything they want.
Reality is, the development time may actually be worth it. All of us here can speculate all we want - but the WotC team needs to look into it and make their decisions... I'm hoping from this thread... and the ever increasing post/ view count, that they will look into it and come to conclusion that they should in fact make their software multi-platform.
Until you can show where you data comes from... you are not going to convince anyone to change their mind...
I could care less. I'm just explaining why the decision was made. I don't care if you believe escape velocity is ~25k MPH or not. It doesn't change facts...
I could care less. I'm just explaining why the decision was made. I don't care if you believe escape velocity is ~25k MPH or not. It doesn't change facts...
And what you are providing are not facts... only opinions and unfounded numbers. Which is what people on BOTH sides of the Mac vs PC market-share debate do.
Once again, as many people have pointed to on this thread, Mac vs PC market-share does not matter so much in the end... what matters as far at this thread is concerned is if there is a benefit to non-windows users and WotC to provide this software in a format that is not dependent on Windows. It may be a lot easier than one might think... it all depends on how the software was written, and if you assume you are coding for non-intel Macs (much harder, but only applies to Macs made more than 3 years ago)... and the demand likely is more based on the demographic that would use the software... the truth is, it probably would take less time to compile the software for Mac that it would be to do market research on the long term demand for a Mac version of the software.
it all depends on how the software was written, and if you assume you are coding for non-intel Macs (much harder, but only applies to Macs made more than 3 years ago)
I'm not sure at all but, I heard it was partially done with .NET. If that's the case MAC users are SOL.
Best case scenario is that after they are done with all apps they will start a Mac porting project. That shouldn't take more than a year after all other projects in the pipeline are done...
Yes, I did pay the money for VMWare Fusion and now I have to keep my stupid Windows XP virtual machine up to date constantly - the sort of thing I wanted to get away from when I switched to a mac.
Why cut out a percentage of users when a simple change in the development platform would help it work anywhere?
can't resize the window
Are you using the same CB beta that I am using? Because I have no problems resizing the window.
Why cut out a percentage of users when a simple change in the development platform would help it work anywhere?
Because it would push up potential development time and cost, as well as other conflict issues. Web-based actually can potentially be worse, as different OS's have different capabilities. Firefox in Windows is not the same as FF in Ubuntu or OSX. One, as nice as flash is, it still isn't bug free. I've had to reinstall it numerous times on both my *nix and my Windows machines,and even then if the app was designed for an older version of Flash you can run into problems. And that's just the plug in. There are still sites that just plain won't work with some browsers, most notably Safari and Chrome had some issues with websites.
Going along with browser issues, will your current browser support older versions of HTML than the current standard? If not, you'll likely run into some problems, especially on websites with a lot of code. So instead of using a fully back compatible framework (.Net) and limiting their user base, they should go with a web-based and have to keep paying developers to ensure that the entire thing not only does what it was intended to do but works with every platform, browser, and plug-in release.
Java is a different matter entirely. Development costs for Java tend to be slightly higher, but like .Net, it's stable and backwards compatible for the most part. The advantage is that it cross platform compatible. They could have gone for Java. But they probably already had people familiar with .Net, so they went with the people they had on payroll and expanded that department instead of having to hire and create an entirely new wing of software development.
And, ultimately as has been said, when you switched to a non-Windows platform, you agreed to not have all the software you want released to run natively on your computer. You bought a Mac, you pay for the consequences, not WotC or any other software developer.
Because it would push up potential development time and cost, as well as other conflict issues. Web-based actually can potentially be worse, as different OS's have different capabilities. Firefox in Windows is not the same as FF in Ubuntu or OSX. One, as nice as flash is, it still isn't bug free. I've had to reinstall it numerous times on both my *nix and my Windows machines,and even then if the app was designed for an older version of Flash you can run into problems. And that's just the plug in. There are still sites that just plain won't work with some browsers, most notably Safari and Chrome had some issues with websites.
Going along with browser issues, will your current browser support older versions of HTML than the current standard? If not, you'll likely run into some problems, especially on websites with a lot of code. So instead of using a fully back compatible framework (.Net) and limiting their user base, they should go with a web-based and have to keep paying developers to ensure that the entire thing not only does what it was intended to do but works with every platform, browser, and plug-in release.
Java is a different matter entirely. Development costs for Java tend to be slightly higher, but like .Net, it's stable and backwards compatible for the most part. The advantage is that it cross platform compatible. They could have gone for Java. But they probably already had people familiar with .Net, so they went with the people they had on payroll and expanded that department instead of having to hire and create an entirely new wing of software development.
And, ultimately as has been said, when you switched to a non-Windows platform, you agreed to not have all the software you want released to run natively on your computer. You bought a Mac, you pay for the consequences, not WotC or any other software developer.
You know, not all of us are "switchers"... many of us have stayed with the Mac platform because that is what we like. We use Windows now and then when we are forced to, but we use the Mac platform as our platform of choice. Hence, I never picked the Mac platform while agreeing to lose programs on the Windows platform. Saying that I now have to pay the consequences is an oversimplification of the situation and frankly offensive.
The whole point for many of us is we believe the Windows viewpoint here has been to not acknowledge the merits of non Windows-based avenues, and many of us find it insulting.
I think the argument that you would have to keep developers working on a web-based version, but you will not with one based on .Net is also weak... I see plenty of programs that are web-based, but only have a limited number of web-browsers that are 'recommended', and inherent to a game like D&D where there are always new characters/ feats, etc., this character builder will always have to be under development anyway.
Additionally, from the programmers I know... who almost all program for primarily windows based environments - they don't like .Net anyway, and most of them prefer Java anyway. I won't try to start their list of grievances with .Net because frankly I have never cared enough to get a list. It does strike me as interesting that the development team here went with .Net, and it makes me wonder what merits it had that made them want to go with it... I hope it was not just "that's what we knew, and we don't bother to learn if there are better ways."
If the web-app is written cleanly enough, and uses clean enough standards, I would say if it runs on Firefox and IE you should have something that is a lot more usable, and easier... not just for Mac users, but Windows (and other) users as well.
A web-based application seems like it would make a whole pile of sense because ...
1.) Whenever there was a new update, I wouldn't have to do a new download of the client application. Instead, updates are deployed to the web-based application, and available to all subscribers immediately.
2.) I'd be able to access my characters ... anywhere! From my desktop at home, my laptop at work, a computer at my friends house ... even from my web-enabled Blackbery Storm! No files to transfer, everything is online and easy to access.
3.) There is no processing power / heavy graphics that warrants the character builder to be a client application. It's a database app, and those applications are ideally suited for the web.
4.) Easier to track user usage of the application, types of characters being built, number of characters per user, etc. That kind of business intelligence could be very useful for future application development and feature roll-outs.
5.) Easier to control usage by subscription, and fits better in the subscriber model that DDi is going for.
-nh
P.S., That said, there's no reason Java or Flash or some other runtime engine that enjoys cross-OS support could not be used. I was thinking that if they had already sunk development effort into a .NET solution, that the cost to modify it and still be a .NET solution would be less than switching wholesale.
2.) I'd be able to access my characters ... anywhere! From my desktop at home, my laptop at work, a computer at my friends house ... even from my web-enabled Blackbery Storm! No files to transfer, everything is online and easy to access.
While I liked all of your points, I think this one is particularly significant. The pure mobility of it is great... someone is late and says "play my character until I get there", no problem, we can all access it on the web.
In fact, my group has actually semi-gone this route by putting our entire party in a google-spreadsheet on the web that we can all access... actually makes it pretty handy when we are trying to figure out how we want to tackle skill challenges!
Might be worth noting that we [my group] might be using the character builder more/ at all, if I had not created the party web-spreadsheet... which I may not have done if I could have accessed the character creation software on my mac... now for want of this program on a universal platform for one, WotC potentially lost out on a whole party of dedicated users.... although now another member of my group just ditched his PC for a Mac, and I think another is going to do the same, so maybe 1/2 of my group would have had the same issues either way...
1.) Whenever there was a new update, I wouldn't have to do a new download of the client application. Instead, updates are deployed to the web-based application, and available to all subscribers immediately.
But the problem with this route is that if there is bad data, we would have to wait for the developers to clean it up before we could make use of the program again. In a client application, we can just reinstall to the most recent version and continue to function while we wait for them to fix whatever broke.
2.) I'd be able to access my characters ... anywhere! From my desktop at home, my laptop at work, a computer at my friends house ... even from my web-enabled Blackbery Storm! No files to transfer, everything is online and easy to access.
I have no complaints about this. I would *love* to be able to have access to all my characters from anywhere. Oh, wait. I do! I have this little thing called a USB thumb drive. It's amazing! It lets me save my files and access them anywhere!
3.) There is no processing power / heavy graphics that warrants the character builder to be a client application. It's a database app, and those applications are ideally suited for the web.
Actually, this would require *more* processing power *on the server side* and WotC would have to pass that cost down to use. The more people who are using the app, the more sluggish it could get. Granted, with the proper hardware and maintanence, this would be an ideal solution.
4.) Easier to track user usage of the application, types of characters being built, number of characters per user, etc. That kind of business intelligence could be very useful for future application development and feature roll-outs.
While this would be a good thing for WotC, some people would have problems with having their data scraped like that. It's bad enough that we have to deal with it while surfing the web normally, but when using a paid service? I would hope there's a way to opt-out of it if they went this route.
5.) Easier to control usage by subscription, and fits better in the subscriber model that DDi is going for.
Controlling usage would be easy with a client app: just make sure the program asks for a user name and password for a current DDi subscription to allow access to the DDi Compendium data. The rest of the application could work unimpeded by not being logged in.
This leads to another reason I think making this be a server-side browser app would be a bad thing: if DDi's servers go down for whatever reason, the program is inaccessible. As it is now, even if WotC goes out of business tomorrow, my Character Builder beta will work forever. Sure, I won't have any updates to it and can't use it past level 3, but I can add powers to my character each level from there by hand.
While I liked all of your points, I think this one is particularly significant. The pure mobility of it is great... someone is late and says "play my character until I get there", no problem, we can all access it on the web.
In fact, my group has actually semi-gone this route by putting our entire party in a google-spreadsheet on the web that we can all access... actually makes it pretty handy when we are trying to figure out how we want to tackle skill challenges!
Might be worth noting that we [my group] might be using the character builder more/ at all, if I had not created the party web-spreadsheet... which I may not have done if I could have accessed the character creation software on my mac... now for want of this program on a universal platform for one, WotC potentially lost out on a whole party of dedicated users.... although now another member of my group just ditched his PC for a Mac, and I think another is going to do the same, so maybe 1/2 of my group would have had the same issues either way...
It's worth noting one of the features of DDI (that's been backburnered until after at least the release of the Game Table) is/was to include an online "Vault" where players could save and share information.
Originally this was going to include things like shared "slots" of Characters. So, I could build my character upload/save it online and share it (with the world at large? with people I choose? It isn't clear which).
That would allow you to still access your character anywhere in the world - once you have the software installed.
Indeed they are, but given that a cross platform engine would have given them access to the whole market, I'm kind of confused by the decision.
Heck as they mention in the current Podcast, they could have designed it to also be mobile device friendly as well.... because if you want to talk the future of computing it is in mobile devices.
End your confusion. True, any programmer worth serious money wouldn't have even considered doing a platform-specific solution. It's not cheaper to develop for a specific platform over one of the cross-platform options. It's not even more stable. It's just that WoTC didn't know how. Internet-based stuff is simply not within their business expertise. They're a small, inexperienced team working way beyond their comfort zone. As has been clear from the start, and as they've said in various interviews. Someone knew .NET, and that's where they went.
And who's to say that's wrong? 4e is a great product, and WoTC probably has sufficient control over their IP that they don't need to make the whole "insider" thing work in order to get what they can from the RPG crowd. I joined DDI because I was reading the written material anyway (it's good), and I figured that I ought to pay. The D&D team are good at getting that content down. But unless they suddenly get serious about the online stuff and stop playing toe-in-the-water, I can't imagine the builder, visualiser and game table would be worth trying even if I could. I certainly won't be buying a boxed copy of windows to try it.
For anyone counting (though I doubt that): +1 to the demand for a cross-platform solution.
...and for the largely tangential Windows vs Mac OS debate: There's plenty of software you can't get on a Windows machine, so let's not pretend like there's anything so special about that platform.
...and for the largely tangential Windows vs Mac OS debate: There's plenty of software you can't get on a Windows machine, so let's not pretend like there's anything so special about that platform.
But the last time I checked, there's no market for Mac emulators on Windows. I wonder why ... ?
On topic: Without knowing the dynamics behind the company (WotC) I would say they probably chose .NET since they could get the development software *for free* legally: .net express edition. Any of the .net languages. Royalty free. It's that simple. There is simply nothing on Mac that would be free (royalty or otherwise) and the tools for Linux, while being free, would only allow for programming in Linux GUIs, not Windows ... which is still the largest customer base for programs being released currently. Although, I guess the tools to program for Linux GUIs could be used to program for the Mac as well ... huh? But still, not for Windows.
Unless they went with Java. Which, according to "The DM's Toolkit"'s team, would still mean no Mac since there is no good Java compiler on the Mac system.
But the last time I checked, there's no market for Mac emulators on Windows. I wonder why ... ?
Maybe you checked in the 80s. The current group selling windows machines that can dual boot to Mac OS X can't make enough of them to keep up with demand. That, and they are being attacked by Apple's lawyers*, who want to prevent this whole "OS X goodness without the Apple hardware price tag" party from ever happening.
On topic: [stuff claiming it's impossible to build cross-platform apps based on open source platforms since they don't exist]...
...you'd have to delete a dozen applications off my machine before I could be convinced by that argument. Oh, and you'd also have to erase my memory of them, and make sure I couldn't use the internet if I got curious.
We're talking a basic database here, and a pretty simple front end. The front end could indeed be Java (I've got some Java programs that run fine on windows/linux/macosx), but the windowing could even be browser-based without much hassle. Once the backend is functional, you're quite free.
Not that any of this matters. Sorry to keep piping up.
*Who, by the way, eat their own children.
But what I will never understand is this,if they use windows more than they use OSX (which most of them do), then why didn't they just buy a Windows machine?.
It's Like saying I'm different, but I cant stand not having what the other guy has.
I work IT in a mid sized university in Southern Illinois, We have a fair share of apples here. I would say 90% of them though either run a Virtual Windows program such as Parallels or Virtual box, or are boot camped. (there are few that use crossover, which is based on Wine).
But what I will never understand is this,if they use windows more than they use OSX (which most of them do), then why didn't they just buy a Windows machine?.
It's Like saying I'm different, but I cant stand not having what the other guy has.
If you are asking because you really want to know, this is the best way I know to explain it to people who have never really sat down and used a Mac who are trying to understand why people who do use a Mac like it so much (again, speaking from the perspective of a person who prefers to use a Mac)...
when you use your windows box, you have to fight it to get it to do what you want... it's something you are forced to use to get a task done. On your Mac, it works with you, it's an enjoyable experience, you end up feeling like you have a relationship with your computer... hence many Mac users have named their computers... while I find most PC users think you are strange if you have named your computer.
So, for those Mac users you see running emulation software, chances are (in my mind) they are using the computer they prefer and using the emulation software when they have to.
Hope that helped!
I work IT in a mid sized university in Southern Illinois, We have a fair share of apples here. I would say 90% of them though either run a Virtual Windows program such as Parallels or Virtual box, or are boot camped. (there are few that use crossover, which is based on Wine).
But what I will never understand is this,if they use windows more than they use OSX (which most of them do), then why didn't they just buy a Windows machine?.
It's Like saying I'm different, but I cant stand not having what the other guy has.
Careful hanging around those Mac users... I worked at IBM for many years, and started off as the only one in the building as a Mac user, I used several PCs at work, but they all knew I used a Mac at home (and would give me a hard time about it). However within a few years, I had 9 of them using Macs at home as their primary machine, and to-date none of them have gone back.
But the last time I checked, there's no market for Mac emulators on Windows. I wonder why ... ?
errr.... did you even bother to do a google search? There have been several Mac Emulators over the years. The most in demand one I knew of was to be able to run specific Power PC programs that never were produced for non PowerPC Apple computers called PearPC.
But you are right, it does not really relate to this thread. :-)
But the last time I checked, there's no market On topic: Without knowing the dynamics behind the company (WotC) I would say they probably chose .NET since they could get the development software *for free* legally: .net express edition. Any of the .net languages. Royalty free. It's that simple. There is simply nothing on Mac that would be free (royalty or otherwise) and the tools for Linux, while being free, would only allow for programming in Linux GUIs, not Windows ... which is still the largest customer base for programs being released currently. Although, I guess the tools to program for Linux GUIs could be used to program for the Mac as well ... huh? But still, not for Windows.
Unless they went with Java. Which, according to "The DM's Toolkit"'s team, would still mean no Mac since there is no good Java compiler on the Mac system.
Again, a quick google check... or visiting the Apple developer site will show that there are a lot of tools, both provided by Apple and 3rd parties that will help you program for the Mac for free. Of course you can get even more stuff if you are willing to lay down a few dollars, but that's true for most any industry, software or otherwise.
There is simply nothing on Mac that would be free (royalty or otherwise)
Umm, that is completely and totally false.
Unless they went with Java. Which, according to "The DM's Toolkit"'s team, would still mean no Mac since there is no good Java compiler on the Mac system.
Huh? That is complete nonsense.
Unless they went with Java. Which, according to "The DM's Toolkit"'s team, would still mean no Mac since there is no good Java compiler on the Mac system.
Agree with previous poster... this is completely false.
Agree with previous poster... this is completely false.
Ditto.
If you are asking because you really want to know, this is the best way I know to explain it to people who have never really sat down and used a Mac who are trying to understand why people who do use a Mac like it so much (again, speaking from the perspective of a person who prefers to use a Mac)...
when you use your windows box, you have to fight it to get it to do what you want... it's something you are forced to use to get a task done. On your Mac, it works with you, it's an enjoyable experience, you end up feeling like you have a relationship with your computer... hence many Mac users have named their computers... while I find most PC users think you are strange if you have named your computer.
So, for those Mac users you see running emulation software, chances are (in my mind) they are using the computer they prefer and using the emulation software when they have to.
Hope that helped!
Not quite, they are almost always in the windows box or in windows on boot camp. In fact if the windows gets borked up (and we all know windows does) they cry for days until its fixed.
The head of CAS (College of Arts and Science) use to have a 24 inch Imac, but windows continually had problems on it in parallels and boot camp (ended up the graphics card was wonkey).
So she bought a Tangent windows machine, and has been happy since, but then she bought a Air book, and put windows on it. *shakes head*.
My problem is that they buy the MAC to run windows on it. The only client I have that runs in Pure OSX mode is the Manager of Print and Design. And even he sends his job to a windows 2000 server that parses the jobs and sends them to a Epson wide print printer.
Its like "Think different" (shhhh we actually all use windows anyway).
*shakes head*.
Not quite, they are almost always in the windows box or in windows on boot camp. In fact if the windows gets borked up (and we all know windows does) they cry for days until its fixed.
The head of CAS (College of Arts and Science) use to have a 24 inch Imac, but windows continually had problems on it in parallels and boot camp (ended up the graphics card was wonkey).
So she bought a Tangent windows machine, and has been happy since, but then she bought a Air book, and put windows on it. *shakes head*.
That's interesting but it's nothing to draw any conclusions on. I can provide anectdotal evidence of engineers that have a Windows VM on their mac, they avoid using it at all costs.
My problem is that they buy the MAC to run windows on it. The only client I have that runs in Pure OSX mode is the Manager of Print and Design. And even he sends his job to a windows 2000 server that parses the jobs and sends them to a Epson wide print printer.
Its like "Think different" (shhhh we actually all use windows anyway).
*shakes head*.
Except we all don't. Nor does that marketing slogan have anything to do with things. No more than whatever slogan MS is currently using. You're looking at a ridiculously small sample set. If anything I would do the opposite: buy a "Windows laptop" (which is a misnomer), and install OS X on it. It's not about the hardware, it's about the OS.
I'm certainly not going to get into a Mac vs. Windows debate here other than to say I've had Windows users envious of what my OS X and *nix machines can do, but never the reverse.
That's interesting but it's nothing to draw any conclusions on. I can provide anectdotal evidence of engineers that have a Windows VM on their mac, they avoid using it at all costs.
Except we all don't. Nor does that marketing slogan have anything to do with things. No more than whatever slogan MS is currently using. You're looking at a ridiculously small sample set. If anything I would do the opposite: buy a "Windows laptop" (which is a misnomer), and install OS X on it. It's not about the hardware, it's about the OS.
I'm certainly not going to get into a Mac vs. Windows debate here other than to say I've had Windows users envious of what my OS X and *nix machines can do, but never the reverse.
I agree. The Mac vs PC debate really is not what this thread is about, it's about "Character Builder Needs to be able to run on a Mac".
I have hitherto never heard of Mac users who run pure Windows on their machines, and the story by akodoreign seems fairly dubious - however I cannot speak for what he sees from his perspective at his school, so I will trust he believes what he sees... even though it is complexly contradictory to what I normally see - again, from my perspective. For what it is worth, I don't see many casual Mac users who try to portray themselves as "Think Different" - rather they just like to use the Mac platform because for them, it is their platform of choice... hardware and software (typically the software being the most important factor).
Mac users make that decision when they pick the platform. They know that XXX won't run on it. If they need XXX they run windows virtually or naively (boot camp).
And its not dubious its true, yes there is other factors (EMS, event management systems) Active directory, etc. But that's just all about integration (yes I know a Mac can connect to AD, But it doesn't work nearly as well.)
A Mac use to be different. The Motorola chip and hardware built specifically for the Mac made it a Unique and reliable machine.
Now all Mac really has is Free BSD with a pretty shell on a Intel machine.
Now does it work, Sure it does. I have one my self in my set up area, and it never gives me a fit and does exactly what it was meant to do.
Do I want character builder on it. No, I don't see a need for it. I run virtual box from Sun microsystems and windows on a secondary monitor, and it works fine. There is 0 reason that they need to go back from scratch and recode the entire thing just for a few people who refuse to run windows, sorry.
If the CB is written as I think it is ( in C#) then when MONO gets updated to support .net 3.5 it should not be a difficult task to get it running on any MONO supported OS. If it is written in another .net language (Managed C++, ATL, VB(ick) ) then it will be slightly more difficult.
Java is not a good choice due to support issues (how many people have had nightmares setting up PCGen and the other java based free tools?).
I think wizards has chosen the development platform well enough to support the major OS, and they don't need to be "reminded". Let them finish it for one platform before you bug them about making it work on another. The worst thing they could do right now is rush the product out and ruin what looks to be a great tool.
Why does it "need" to run on a mac though?
Mac users make that decision when they pick the platform. They know that XXX won't run on it. If they need XXX they run windows virtually or naively (boot camp).
And its not dubious its true, yes there is other factors (EMS, event management systems) Active directory, etc. But that's just all about integration (yes I know a Mac can connect to AD, But it doesn't work nearly as well.)
A Mac use to be different. The Motorola chip and hardware built specifically for the Mac made it a Unique and reliable machine.
Now all Mac really has is Free BSD with a pretty shell on a Intel machine.
Now does it work, Sure it does. I have one my self in my set up area, and it never gives me a fit and does exactly what it was meant to do.
Do I want character builder on it. No, I don't see a need for it. I run virtual box from Sun microsystems and windows on a secondary monitor, and it works fine. There is 0 reason that they need to go back from scratch and recode the entire thing just for a few people who refuse to run windows, sorry.
They "need" to - because there is demand they are not aware of.
OK, so if we want to argue about semantics, we could say we "want" them to... but then we could also say they don't "need" to write the software at all... we could say "it's a pen & paper game, you don't 'need' a computer at all".
So your opinion is "I don't need it, so no one needs it." OK - that's your opinion and you are entitled to it. There are many of of who feel "I need it" and we are expressing that here.
Obviously this is something that is at least worth looking into by WotC, given the large post/ view count of this thread in the relatively short time it has been here.
Java is not a good choice due to support issues (how many people have had nightmares setting up PCGen and the other java based free tools?).
I don't know, how many? I'm not sure where this myth is coming from so support it please. I'm being a bit facetious here I'll admit, mainly because I know you're wrong considering a work for a company that sells enterprise, cross platform software written in Java that is orders of magnitude more complicated than the character builder (or any of DDI for that matter).
I downloaded it, double clicked and it ran. Maybe Windows users have more trouble? I wouldn't know. It's certainly possible, since MS actively tried to screw with Java running on their OS way back.
There certainly isn't a better track record deploying Windows software, particularly due to not having a (near) homogeneous hardware platform to leverage.
Mono isn't any easier to get going than a Java solution. More importantly if you want to talk about support issues, here's where you're going to find them. You're relying on a 3rd party of volunteers to provide support for alternate platforms. Not to mention that currently it is completely insufficient.
They "need" to - because there is demand they are not aware of.
OK, so if we want to argue about semantics, we could say we "want" them to... but then we could also say they don't "need" to write the software at all... we could say "it's a pen & paper game, you don't 'need' a computer at all".
So your opinion is "I don't need it, so no one needs it." OK - that's your opinion and you are entitled to it. There are many of of who feel "I need it" and we are expressing that here.
Obviously this is something that is at least worth looking into by WotC, given the large post/ view count of this thread in the relatively short time it has been here.
But I really don't think you know what you are asking. To go from .net to something like Java would mean scrapping a years worth of code.
We may not even receive a product if they have to do that. Then it becomes vaporware. They are laying off DDI guys as is. We need them to just finish what they have going, and then possibly looking at a port.
Right now this IS not important. sorry. And the thread is very self serving.
I don't know, how many? I'm not sure where this myth is coming from so support it please. I'm being a bit facetious here I'll admit, mainly because I know you're wrong considering a work for a company that sells enterprise, cross platform software written in Java that is orders of magnitude more complicated than the character builder (or any of DDI for that matter).
I downloaded it, double clicked and it ran. Maybe Windows users have more trouble? I wouldn't know. It's certainly possible, since MS actively tried to screw with Java running on their OS way back.
There certainly isn't a better track record deploying Windows software, particularly due to not having a (near) homogeneous hardware platform to leverage.
Mono isn't any easier to get going than a Java solution. More importantly if you want to talk about support issues, here's where you're going to find them. You're relying on a 3rd party of volunteers to provide support for alternate platforms. Not to mention that currently it is completely insufficient.
To support what you are saying, I have never had any issue running anything Java based on my Mac... in fact, the only Java issues I can remember having is with Windows machines that needed a newer copy of Java on their machine... was not terribly complicated, although it was a bit of a pain since we were in a place with inconvenient access to the internet.
But I really don't think you know what you are asking. To go from .net to something like Java would mean scrapping a years worth of code.
We may not even receive a product if they have to do that. Then it becomes vaporware. They are laying off DDI guys as is. We need them to just finish what they have going, and then possibly looking at a port.
Right now this IS not important. sorry. And the thread is very self serving.
I don't think you see what I am saying. I'm not saying they need to scrap what they have done. I'm saying they need to see what their options are to make this available on the Mac in the future. We can all speculate on what they should do to make this possible (or if they should do it at all), but every single one of us has to make assumptions about infrastructure, coding, and ability of the IT team at WotC... so we cannot really definitively say. What we can do is show that it is a topic that people feel passionately about, and therefor is worth reviewing. Review does not mean stop what they are doing, scrap it all, and throw out vaporware... it just means look critically at it, and see if there is a effective way to meet this demand or not.
To support what you are saying, I have never had any issue running anything Java based on my Mac... in fact, the only Java issues I can remember having is with Windows machines that needed a newer copy of Java on their machine... was not terribly complicated, although it was a bit of a pain since we were in a place with inconvenient access to the internet.
In the interest of full disclosure you could potentially run into issues if you need Java 6 and aren't on a 64-bit machine (we won't get into 64 bit issues and Windows).
I actually don't like Java much, despite working with it on a daily basis (or maybe partially because of that fact), but there's just so much FUD out there it's amazing.
I to am a software developer and have been having great sucsess using .net apps on other OSs (linux/bsd).
I've checked into CB and it does seem to be a pure .net app, it dosn't link to any windows specific libraries.
Yes mono is open source, but that dosn't make it bad. Since it allows .net apps to work on other platforms it has a large amount of support. You'd be suprised at how many enterprise level companies put support into open source projects ( take a look at subversion).
Now CB does use .net 3.5 and some new features of it (it seems to be a WPF app) so it may take time for that support to come to other apps. But the good thing is that work DOSN'T have to come from MS.
The core point I would like to make is simply that they have not totaly shuned other platforms (like if the app had been writen in MFC, or native WIN32 code), and they are using some rather cuting edge tech on this.
So let them get it done on the platform that will get the most testing/sales, then let them worry about getting it working on other systems, since they have chosen a path that should allow it in the future.
Some others have mentioned a web interface, .net allso makes that some easy, but that does offer another set of challenges (hosting, browser support, etc) and I'm sure that is one of the options they will look into once the system has been tested and reached 1.0 status.
I'd be very interested to see the dev roadmap for all the DDI products.
Yes, I'm sure there are cases where java works just fine. I'ver heard it work for some and not for others, such is the nature of software
I to am a software developer and have been having great sucsess using .net apps on other OSs (linux/bsd).
I've checked into CB and it does seem to be a pure .net app, it dosn't link to any windows specific libraries.
Yes mono is open source, but that dosn't make it bad. Since it allows .net apps to work on other platforms it has a large amount of support. You'd be suprised at how many enterprise level companies put support into open source projects ( take a look at subversion).
Now CB does use .net 3.5 and some new features of it (it seems to be a WPF app) so it may take time for that support to come to other apps. But the good thing is that work DOSN'T have to come from MS.
The core point I would like to make is simply that they have not totaly shuned other platforms (like if the app had been writen in MFC, or native WIN32 code), and they are using some rather cuting edge tech on this.
So let them get it done on the platform that will get the most testing/sales, then let them worry about getting it working on other systems, since they have chosen a path that should allow it in the future.
Some others have mentioned a web interface, .net allso makes that some easy, but that does offer another set of challenges (hosting, browser support, etc) and I'm sure that is one of the options they will look into once the system has been tested and reached 1.0 status.
I'd be very interested to see the dev roadmap for all the DDI products.
Informative and insightful!
Yes, I'm sure there are cases where java works just fine. I'ver heard it work for some and not for others, such is the nature of software
I to am a software developer and have been having great sucsess using .net apps on other OSs (linux/bsd).
I've checked into CB and it does seem to be a pure .net app, it dosn't link to any windows specific libraries.
Yes mono is open source, but that dosn't make it bad. Since it allows .net apps to work on other platforms it has a large amount of support. You'd be suprised at how many enterprise level companies put support into open source projects ( take a look at subversion).
Now CB does use .net 3.5 and some new features of it (it seems to be a WPF app) so it may take time for that support to come to other apps. But the good thing is that work DOSN'T have to come from MS.
The core point I would like to make is simply that they have not totaly shuned other platforms (like if the app had been writen in MFC, or native WIN32 code), and they are using some rather cuting edge tech on this.
So let them get it done on the platform that will get the most testing/sales, then let them worry about getting it working on other systems, since they have chosen a path that should allow it in the future.
Some others have mentioned a web interface, .net allso makes that some easy, but that does offer another set of challenges (hosting, browser support, etc) and I'm sure that is one of the options they will look into once the system has been tested and reached 1.0 status.
I'd be very interested to see the dev roadmap for all the DDI products.
These decisions were indeed made with the idea that other platforms are eventuals. And it is high on our list but the technical details necessary are not something I can speak on.
Threads like this encourage us to keep it on the top of our list, and we do notice them.
These decisions were indeed made with the idea that other platforms are eventuals. And it is high on our list but the technical details necessary are not something I can speak on.
Threads like this encourage us to keep it on the top of our list, and we do notice them.
Excellent, thanks Mike!
Yes mono is open source, but that dosn't make it bad. Since it allows .net apps to work on other platforms it has a large amount of support. You'd be suprised at how many enterprise level companies put support into open source projects ( take a look at subversion).
So is Java, I've never said that OSS is bad. My name just might be in the commit comments of several common OSS projects.
However it is far easier to get a cross platform Java solution up and running right now than a .NET solution.
I happen to like the CLR a lot, though I'm not a fan of .NET in general. Had MS pulled their heads out of their asses and released it for other platforms as well they could have had a real shot at setting a cross platform standard, not to mention cutting their own development costs (bear in mind they do OS X development as well).
Now CB does use .net 3.5 and some new features of it (it seems to be a WPF app) so it may take time for that support to come to other apps. But the good thing is that work DOSN'T have to come from MS.
The core point I would like to make is simply that they have not totaly shuned other platforms (like if the app had been writen in MFC, or native WIN32 code), and they are using some rather cuting edge tech on this.
So let them get it done on the platform that will get the most testing/sales, then let them worry about getting it working on other systems, since they have chosen a path that should allow it in the future.
Some others have mentioned a web interface, .net allso makes that some easy, but that does offer another set of challenges (hosting, browser support, etc) and I'm sure that is one of the options they will look into once the system has been tested and reached 1.0 status.
I'd be very interested to see the dev roadmap for all the DDI products.
Honestly I don't care what platform they release it on, but the point can be made that they could have released a cross platform solution just as easily, particularly for the CB.
At this point I would like to see the full suite released, regardless of platform, though truth be told I have little faith that they'll be able to compete with products like MapTool at this point.
These decisions were indeed made with the idea that other platforms are eventuals. And it is high on our list but the technical details necessary are not something I can speak on.
Threads like this encourage us to keep it on the top of our list, and we do notice them.
That's somewhat encouraging to me. It's very frustrating to me that I'm being actively marketed to - in the books I've bought, and when I visit the site - yet I'm not actually able to use the product. Those people suggesting bootcamp should bear in mind I'd still have to *buy windows*, which I'm not going to do to run one program. Even if I was certain I could get the things to run under WINE with Mono, I'd go ahead and do it. It has been said that 4E is competing with WoW, but even that runs natively on Mac, or through wine on linux. :-(
But, for now, I'll just keep running my campaign low-tech, and wait!
These decisions were indeed made with the idea that other platforms are eventuals. And it is high on our list but the technical details necessary are not something I can speak on.
Threads like this encourage us to keep it on the top of our list, and we do notice them.
Glad to see that it's on your radar. Mono is scheduled to have .net 3.5 support in march 2009, I'm sure next year will open up some interesting options for you guys (like apple may add a version of GCC that supports the C++TR1 stuff it looks like your using
).From what I've seen it's a very solid app using a lot of the new APIs out there, keep up the good work
These decisions were indeed made with the idea that other platforms are eventuals. And it is high on our list but the technical details necessary are not something I can speak on.
Threads like this encourage us to keep it on the top of our list, and we do notice them.
That's encouraging to hear. Thanks, Mike.
One more point to make on virtualization: I'm a Mac user, and I am running CB under VMware Fusion +X P on my iMac at home. This is better than the previous Boot Camp solution, but:
- With 2 GB of RAM, performance could degrade pretty quickly. Running Fusion (or presumably Parallels) uses up a lot of real memory, and I descended into swapping quickly if I ran a lot of other apps at the same time. Bumping the RAM up to 4 GB solved that, but that's another $100 I spent, in addition to the cost of Fusion and XP.
- While that takes care of me at home, it doesn't help if I want to run CB on my MacBook. I'd need a second license for Windows for that machine, and I'm sure not buying XP twice. ;) For that matter, even if I were willing to do so, I don't really have the hard disk space to give up to another Windows installation on my portable.
So yes, while virtualization or Boot Camp offer reasonable workarounds for some Mac users to try CB, it's not really an adequate answer in the long run. I'm glad to hear the cross platform support is not a dead issue at WotC.
Thanks
Get a PC. Do you complain when popular games come out which won't run on your Mac? Sure do. Why won't they make them run on your Mac? Because there are more gamers with PCs than with Macs. Get over it. It's the way things are.
[Sigh] I'll raise to the bait just this once, reading each and every post (some of them quite good, BTW), say my bit and be done with it.
- I already have a PC which I rarely use largely because it is very inconvenient. This is true for many users.
- When you say "PC" you actually mean Windows.
- The character builder is not an OS application, it's a web based application that requires Windows only .NET software and a specific Windows only browser, Internet Explorer (IE).
- Many people own PCs but do not use Windows, so this is not an exclusive Mac issue (though they are in the majority).
- Many people use Windows but do not use IE. If not an inconvenience for them, it is often an irritation.
- As I have said, the only browser (AFAIK) that can run .NET dependant content is IE. Though still in the majority, it does not have as nearly as much "market share" as it used to which is currently 71% and it is declining; web application usage is down nearly 2% in the last quarter alone, and almost 7% over this past year. Also, since a large percentage of IE usage is in the Enterprise market (i.e., at work), the user base (of this web based application at least) is even smaller.
- There is no reason that any web application must use IE/Windows. It may be easier for the developers (or encouraged by financial incentives from Microsoft) but there is virtually no technical reason that it cannot be developed for most any OS/browser combination.
Therefor, is abundantly clear preventing a sizable portion of a potential customer base (easily 20%) from using a paid product does not make good business sense. The good new for us is that Wizards recognizes that Character builder needs to be able to run on browsers other than IE.
Get over it.
[*]When you say "PC" you actually mean Windows.
I've given up on this one
- The character builder is not an OS application, it's a web based application that requires Windows only .NET software and a specific Windows only browser, Internet Explorer (IE).
- Many people use Windows but do not use IE. If not an inconvenience for them, it is often an irritation.
- As I have said, the only browser (AFAIK) that can run .NET dependant content is IE. Though still in the majority, it does not have as nearly as much "market share" as it used to which is currently 71% and it is declining; web application usage is down nearly 2% in the last quarter alone, and almost 7% over this past year. Also, since a large percentage of IE usage is in the Enterprise market (i.e., at work), the user base (of this web based application at least) is even smaller.
- There is no reason that any web application must use IE/Windows. It may be easier for the developers (or encouraged by financial incentives from Microsoft) but there is virtually no technical reason that it cannot be developed for most any OS/browser combination.
I understand OS part, but get puzzled by browser part.
I'm using Mozilla as my browser. I still can run CharBuilder and it does not affect my browser choice in any way.
CharBuilder is as much OS application as possible. It is mix of C++ native code compiled for windows with standalone .NET application. Only part of IE which is there is mshtml.dll, which is html rendering engine, which happens to be used by IE (no reason to duplicate work here).
So, it is NOT web application, it is NOT browser-based application. It is standalone, native window app, which use windows-specific libraries and has part of the logic implemented in managed environment.
They could have written it in java, which would be portable almost out of the box, with 95% of the capabilities. They could have done it as a web app, with 60% of capabilities and have not only portability but also zero-setup costs (plus easy implementation for stuff like char sharing, publishing, etc). But they have not done it and now it is bit too late I'm afraid.
As for the people who are saying that they will quit D&D and switch to another game because of no Mac support... Can you please name P&P rpg games which have something with quality of CharBuilder available for Mac for their rulesets?
It is mix of C++ native code compiled for windows with standalone .NET application. Only part of IE which is there is mshtml.dll, which is html rendering engine, which happens to be used by IE (no reason to duplicate work here).
he is alluding tot he fact that the CB is based largely on html, and the use of IE's (or rather .net's) HTML rendering engine. Personally, I'd like to here where he got his facts, I don't know how to analyze that on a process level.
So, it is NOT web application, it is NOT browser-based application. It is standalone, native window app, which use windows-specific libraries and has part of the logic implemented in managed environment.
he isn't saying its a web based app, he' saying its a browser based app, which means it's using the HTML libraries of .net (or IE). This make a bit of sense, if you analyze the packets sent by the CB stuff, it's mostly (all?) port 80 traffic, specificly that little news window at the CB opening page. (which loads from html)
They could have written it in java, which would be portable almost out of the box, with 95% of the capabilities. They could have done it as a web app, with 60% of capabilities and have not only portability but also zero-setup costs (plus easy implementation for stuff like char sharing, publishing, etc). But they have not done it and now it is bit too late I'm afraid.
... neither of those options would have killed capabilities at all, saying that is a bit ignorant of what is capable on those platforms.
but you're right, it's to late to talk about this, so let's not.
As for the people who are saying that they will quit D&D and switch to another game because of no Mac support... Can you please name P&P rpg games which have something with quality of CharBuilder available for Mac for their rulesets?
funny thing about mac/linux support - mono is not that for from .net 3.5 support... and an html rendering engine isn't a big hurdle.
It's possible that there are more central IE files that need to be removed for a total borkage
thanks to unlocker, I can see files that are locked by apps (theres got to be an easier way to do this.. sorry windows is my second OS)
ieframe.dll is also locked by the CB, so yes it is IE dependant, and a little IE based.
As for the people who are saying that they will quit D&D and switch to another game because of no Mac support... Can you please name P&P rpg games which have something with quality of CharBuilder available for Mac for their rulesets?
/sarcasm on
How can I compare something with the quality of a program I cannot access? If I cannot access it, it has 0 quality... I guess I could compare it to a rock, which is able to build characters just as well, and also serve as a paperweight... hence a rock is better.
/sarcasm off
I think I was the only one who said it made me feel like quitting D&D, despite playing it for 25 years. This is because despite being an avid D&D player, I also feel specifically shunned as a Mac user.
I'm not saying that other P&P games are specifically Mac friendly - typically they don't have any software at all... they are software agnostic.
Through this thread though, we have seen WotC say that they would like to support the Mac platform and threads like this help support their justification to do so - so my angst is lessened considerably.
I will say that I have used many programs over the years, and some have been quite good on the Mac... for example PC Gen and d20 Pro.
... neither of those options would have killed capabilities at all, saying that is a bit ignorant of what is capable on those platforms.
I'm not a master of Ajax and friends, maybe it is possible to do full offline application with all bells and whistles without any server connection in cross-browser html/javascript - I have just not seen any so far, somehow they always require live wire. As far as limitations of java are concerned, trust me - good html rendering and reasonable print support would be a pain.
People are mentioning Mono. Forgetting about WotC willingness to do the porting effort and support this thingy and problem of finding good html renderer to replace IE libs, is Mono for Mac reasonably complete ?
is Mono for Mac reasonably complete ?
http://www.mono-project.com/Mono:OSX
I would not say that the main app is writen in any platform specific ways, and looks to be a pure C# .net app.
Some of the other dlls (the rules engine, and character interchange) use some of the C++ runtimes, but again do not link to any of the base WIN32 libs, just the C++ runtimes. I'm not 100% sure if the C++ use is managed or unmanaged, but my gut says it's managed since I don't see links to anything else.
Assuming you have a valid .net framework implemtation (MS .net or mono) and C++ runtimes with the required features then there should be no "Port" work other then compiling the DLLs for the native platform so the C++ code works. Both OSX and linux generaly use GCC for C++ and should be fine for the C++ part, and mono can support the other part.
The cool thing about the .net framework is that all the backend code can be implemented in whatever is best for the native OS (IE. in MSs case for HTML rendering, Gecko for mono).
The only part of this thing that I am not sure about with mono is the use of the WPF. I'm not sure how much of CB other then the character sheet uses WPF or when there will be an open source implementation of that framework.
I can't add anything to the debate, except this:
When many people (or at least me) says:
This should be available for the Mac,
what we are really saying is: I'd pay for this to be available on Mac. Right now, I get CB free as part of a previous subscription to Dungeon and Dragon. I've installed it on a player's computer. In the future, when it has a separate cost, will I pay more to have it installed on his computer? Maybe. Would I pay to have it on my own Macintosh? Yes! Heck, I'd pay more than Windows users because I know I'm a niche market, and I would be willing to show my appreciation for being catered to by WOTC.
Some Mac users may be demanding, or whining, or petulant. However, some of us are simply letting a company we support with our dollars (4e got me back into D&D after 10 years out!) that we'd be interested in buying something else from them. That's free market research data.
I pay for a subscription to DDI because I'm a fan of D&D and all the stuff that comes with it. Likewise, when/if CB is released for OS X, I wouldn't mind at all paying for it because I love the game and get so much enjoyment out of both playing the game and building characters!
When you say the user base is much much higher, I wonder how that can be fully appreciated... since the software provided has almost always been PC-only... that is to say, if you were to look at the userbase, you have already singled out Mac-only users.
I don't know what their numbers are... maybe they don't make it publicly available, but my guess is the percentage of the user-base that would prefer to use a Mac over a PC for this type of thing would be similar to World of Warcraft. My expectation is there would still be more PC users, but when I used to play (before kicking the habit - 18 months sober now thank you very much), I was surprised at the significant number of people who had both platforms at home, and preferred playing WoW on the Mac.
I agree most marketing info is spin... on both sides. I also don't buy the "Macs are much more expensive" argument - for every article stating they are more expensive, I can find a compelling one that says they are not... not that really pertains to this thread anyway - in the end (per my post above) Apple appears to be increasing the rate of sales more than other computer companies in the last decade or so... which is why I feel justified in making a post saying Macs should be more supported with programs such as this.
that macs are far more expensive can easily be proven by a stroll into any electronics store.
as for % of users, the last I checked , about a year ago the number of home users of macs was around 13% and of those users many also had pc's.
of course when it comes to pc's not every home user uses the pc as a game platform.
Do not turn this thread into a Macs vs PC war
There is a saying, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
On topic: Without knowing the dynamics behind the company (WotC) I would say they probably chose .NET since they could get the development software *for free* legally: .net express edition. Any of the .net languages. Royalty free. It's that simple. There is simply nothing on Mac that would be free (royalty or otherwise) and the tools for Linux, while being free, would only allow for programming in Linux GUIs, not Windows ... which is still the largest customer base for programs being released currently. Although, I guess the tools to program for Linux GUIs could be used to program for the Mac as well ... huh? But still, not for Windows.
Any self-respecting software firm will pay for quality tools to do the job. Even startup companies will eventually pony up to make sure the developers have decent IDEs, compilers, bug reporting websites, and version control software. While the open source community often offers competitive alternatives for these (i.e. Eclipse, Subversion, Bugzilla), sometimes paying for a proprietary product makes the most sense (i.e. IDEA, Perforce, or JIRA).
A company of Hasbro's size shouldn't be selecting software tools based purely on price. If they do, it lends weight to the opinion that they should not be in the business of software.
Unless they went with Java. Which, according to "The DM's Toolkit"'s team, would still mean no Mac since there is no good Java compiler on the Mac system.
Apple has released a Java 1.6 compiler for Macs. There's no appreciable difference in quality as it was derived from the open sourced compiler from Sun.
How feasible would it be for Wizards of the Coast to publish a spec for accessing the online database? Or, for that matter, releasing an API to do so? Doing this would enable third parties, be they open source or commercial efforts, to develop their own character builder apps that connect to the online database and work on an array of platforms, be they desktop or mobile.
It would also keep revenue coming in for Hasbro as users would still need to purchase the official Character Builder to gain access to the database (either via username/password credentials or a signed digital key). The official Character Builder would then be available to them or they could use a third party implementation tailored to their needs. The Character Builder would in effect be acting as a reference implementation for third parties.
This effectively makes Wizards less of a software company and more a purveyor of content, which is what they do best. Sell access to content in a standard-compliant way and allow others to obtain that content through whatever tools they choose. See Google's release of their maps api for an example that has really taken off.
This would also handle the thorny issue of how to allow third parties to develop software for 4e. As someone who uses Linux at home and a Mac at work, I never expected Wizards to develop computer-based tools for my use. However, with the liberal licensing of 3.x there was the pleasant surprise of open source tools such as PC Gen. With the 4e's new licensing, those open source efforts have largely dried up and something has been lost in the process. It would be nice to see community efforts play a stronger role again.
--way
Of course, not everyone will want to shell out for an extra software licence, just to be able to run the Character Builder. But for those that don't mind doing so, it really isn't a problem to use the application on a Mac.
Out of curiosity, has Wizards ever mentioned the percentage of web traffic they get from Mac/PC/Linux boxes? That seems like it would be a good way to gauge the potential audience.
For any feature of softward (or any engineered product) you can pick two of Speed, Quality, or Price. I'd say that adding Mac support is a quality enhancment, so the tradeoff is probably speed in this case, since they can't raise prices just yet. We've already had to tradeoff a lot of time and I don't see any value in Mac support.
Designing for cross platform costs money. That money will need to be recovered. Thus, if they implement cross platform, I will by paying for something that is worthless to me.
Additionally, I prefer that wizards makes the most profitable software package possible so that they have the financial motivation to undertake further products to enhance everyone's gaming experience.
Realistically, this is a great software package that won't really get a lot of use in terms of time spent during a year. It takes like 10 minutes to make a character, and even less time to update it.
If I were a Mac user, I'd just ask my DM if I can take 10 minutes and make my character on it. I'd save the subscription price AND still get the benefit of a great software package.
I would prefer no Mac support.
For any feature of softward (or any engineered product) you can pick two of Speed, Quality, or Price. I'd say that adding Mac support is a quality enhancment, so the tradeoff is probably speed in this case, since they can't raise prices just yet. We've already had to tradeoff a lot of time and I don't see any value in Mac support.
Designing for cross platform costs money. That money will need to be recovered. Thus, if they implement cross platform, I will by paying for something that is worthless to me.
Additionally, I prefer that wizards makes the most profitable software package possible so that they have the financial motivation to undertake further products to enhance everyone's gaming experience.
Realistically, this is a great software package that won't really get a lot of use in terms of time spent during a year. It takes like 10 minutes to make a character, and even less time to update it.
If I were a Mac user, I'd just ask my DM if I can take 10 minutes and make my character on it. I'd save the subscription price AND still get the benefit of a great software package.
I do not agree with your assessment that you can only pick Speed, Quality or Price. In the end this is just speculation on both our parts... the designers are the ones who could say if it would have an impact. From the software designers I know and the PC software I have seen that has been recompiled to run on a Mac there was absolutely no degradation in speed, quality or price.
Designing cross platform might cost more... or it might not, it all depends on how you approach it. If you make it platform agnostic, it may not matter at all. Again, it depends on the skill-set and approach of the development team and any speculation on change in cost to the end user is just that, speculation. The counter argument (still speculation) is not only will Mac users be less likely to invest if they are not fully supported, but some gaming groups may forgo the software if members of their group are not able to access the software. I know my gaming group is less likely to use it... even the PC users, since the Mac users can't use it and we are less likely to invest in something we can't all use.
As for it takes 10 minutes to make a character and less to update... I almost laughed out loud at this. Maybe for some people it does, but I have never made and played a character without at least 10 hours in planning, min-maxing, and developing my character. I am the most notorious in my group(s) for being like this with my characters... but then that's part of the fun for me. As a Mac user, I can tell you my DM would not be able to do this for me, and I would not want them to. So we will not benefit from the software package in the way you described.
One final note on this, and I suspect my gaming group is not alone on this. Some of us in the group are trying out DDI to see what it is like, and we report back to the rest of the group on what we have found so far. In the end we will likely all either get it, or drop it. Currently there are two people in the group who use Macs as our primary/ only computers - hence it is an important factor for our whole group, not just the two of us. We play D&D weekly from across different states (4 different states) and have been experimenting over the last 5 years with different ways to use software to make this possible, and we have gotten quite good at it. If DDI does not appeal to the Mac users in our group we will look for other ways to supplement our gaming. While we are excited about a lot of the things DDI has to offer, we're also ready to spend our dollars elsewhere. If Wizards is able to capture our dollars, then that is an argument that the cost will be less - even for the Windows users like you, that it wold have been otherwise. Some of us have dropped as much as hundreds of dollars on single software packages and have no qualms about paying if we feel like we are getting our monies worth (although I will say I prefer one-time fee's to subscription based pricing models, and anything that is subscription is less likely to get my dollar long term.)
I do not agree with your assessment that you can only pick Speed, Quality or Price. In the end this is just speculation on both our parts... the designers are the ones who could say if it would have an impact. From the software designers I know and the PC software I have seen that has been recompiled to run on a Mac there was absolutely no degradation in speed, quality or price.
The speed, quality, price is a common discussion when projects are undertaken, and refer to the constraints of a project rather than the quality of the actual product. I'm confident that DDi could work excellently on a mac. For me as a consumer, I merely appreciate that they chose to eliminate a feature that I wouldn't need.
However, I may need to evaluate my gaming groups to see how this would impact them. I suspect not so much, but who knows.
For more on the management trilemma: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_triangle
As for it takes 10 minutes to make a character and less to update... I almost laughed out loud at this. Maybe for some people it does, but I have never made and played a character without at least 10 hours in planning, min-maxing, and developing my character.
I love making character, I'd hope to say as much as you do. However, for me its mostly in my head before I put pen to paper or mouse to DDi. The software package takes only a few minutes while the book usage has taken hours. For my purposes, the Character Builder is the final step to put final concept into paper.
For more on the management trilemma: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_triangle
And since the internet is always right....
j/kI see the theory here, but I do not think it always applies. Not saying that in some cases it is justified, but I do not see it in this case. Again, just a difference of opinion, and I like the foundation of the logic.
I love making character, I'd hope to say as much as you do. However, for me its mostly in my head before I put pen to paper or mouse to DDi. The software package takes only a few minutes while the book usage has taken hours. For my purposes, the Character Builder is the final step to put final concept into paper.
I'm always glad to find other people that get as excited about making the character as they are about playing the character... for me it helps me connect with my PC and makes the game that much more enjoyable. For me the part in my head usually ends up being story and background, but the pen/paper (OK, so often I also use a spreadsheet or two) for min/maxing, figuring out what combination of feats will yield the best end result... what build will be most effective immediately, short term, medium term and long term... what types of other party members with the character mix well... in combat situations, what basic strategies will he/she use to deal with opponents (dealing with ranged based opponents/ melee/ magic slingers/ anti-magic/ undead/ etc/ combination)... and for each of these it involves going back and tweaking the character... for me, a tool like the character builder could make my whole process a lot easier... and I imagine if I was able to try it out, I would be singing it's praises from the rooftops. (I tend to be very vocal about things I believe to be superior products - in case that was not obvious.)
I would also like to give a big raspberry to all the people who come into this thread, which is just a simple request really, and give us all the reasons why the request shouldn't be granted, won't be granted, can't be granted all backed up by nothing more than opinion. Do you guys do that in other places too? Go to some carmaker's forum, pick a topic where someone asks for more legroom in the back or something and then give your inexpert opinion on why that won't happen? If you don't have a Mac and it doesn't affect you, why do you feel the need to come in here and be negative?
Thought I'd add something more constructive to the discussion.
How feasible would it be for Wizards of the Coast to publish a spec for accessing the online database? Or, for that matter, releasing an API to do so? Doing this would enable third parties, be they open source or commercial efforts, to develop their own character builder apps that connect to the online database and work on an array of platforms, be they desktop or mobile.
It would also keep revenue coming in for Hasbro as users would still need to purchase the official Character Builder to gain access to the database (either via username/password credentials or a signed digital key). The official Character Builder would then be available to them or they could use a third party implementation tailored to their needs. The Character Builder would in effect be acting as a reference implementation for third parties.
This effectively makes Wizards less of a software company and more a purveyor of content, which is what they do best. Sell access to content in a standard-compliant way and allow others to obtain that content through whatever tools they choose. See Google's release of their maps api for an example that has really taken off.
This would also handle the thorny issue of how to allow third parties to develop software for 4e. As someone who uses Linux at home and a Mac at work, I never expected Wizards to develop computer-based tools for my use. However, with the liberal licensing of 3.x there was the pleasant surprise of open source tools such as PC Gen. With the 4e's new licensing, those open source efforts have largely dried up and something has been lost in the process. It would be nice to see community efforts play a stronger role again.
This strikes me as a very good idea.
Personally, I'm not willing to pay for DDI until I can run the software on a Mac (without resorting to Boot Camp or virtualization). I think, though, that I'd actually be *more likely* to subscribe if Wizards implemented the above suggestion rather than keeping everything proprietary. More openness is always a good thing.
In any case, it's encouraging to know that the Mac community hasn't been entirely forgotten.
As an aside... the funny part of reading this thread was the WINDOWS users who decided to come in and deride what was a "hey we want this too" conversation. It is not about which is better... it is about what customers would like... just a note.. not a flame..
Beaver
I've given up on this one
Blame it on 3 years of odious "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" advertising foisted on us by Apple.
I want to start by saying that I really like the Character Builder, and I think it is a well-planned tool. I've designed a few applications at my current job, and the Character Builder keeps the end-user's process, not the software structure, in mind. I think this is a hard thing for many developers to do.
Now, I have to say that I, too, do not understand the reason for a Windows-specific deployment. I work for an IT department at the local university and I cannot understand why Wizards would neglect a portion of the market. Current stats show that Windows users are still the majority, however, within the past year to year and a half, Windows use has gone down and Mac use has gone up. (note: This is based off of multiple google analytics reports setup on campus.)
My biggest question for the software developers at Wizards is why .NET Framework 3.5 and not Adobe AIR? Flash and PDFs are in full use throughout the rest of the Wizards's site, as well as even within the current Characer Builder. What is the spec on the .NET Framework that AIR does not have? As far as I can see, .NET is a software framework that allows one to come up with a custom but secure back-end. With AIR you have to use available, standardized languages, but it is secure as well. In fact, Wikipedia appears to point out some concerns of reverse engineering with .NET.
I think AIR would allow for the same great functionality, it addresses security concerns just as well as the .NET Framework, and the Character Builder would reach a wider audience.
Here's some quick Wikipedia overviews of the two systems:
.NET Framework
AIR
Check out the links and please let me know what I'm missing. Or, if you are a developer and know these two like the back of your hand, let me know as well. Thanks.
I would have love to have done a mac version. I have a mac. I also have an iphone.
When I originally joined the project though I was given a 6 month time frame to full release, 3 months to beta, and by the way, that includes the time I could spend hiring a staff. Staff was, fortunately, hired in short order, and I was lucky to get some great people on the team. With the short schedule though we were making decisions between releasing it as a web app, or perhaps winforms. We mocked up a web app and it wasn't responsive enough, we mocked up a winforms prototype, and it was slow and lacked the ability to do all the things we wanted to do so we ported to WPF which set us back a week but was so worth it. We were able to do more things, have better control of the UI and development time was very fast.
Given the short schedule that we had it wouldn't have been reasonable to make a multi-platform version. Once we were done with the initial build I did cost out what it would take to make a mac version, as I think it is short sighted not to make one. The problem being that Wizards just doesn't have enough mac customers yet. They would need something like 10 times as many in order for it to break even, and that's not counting the fact that the majority of mac users can run windows apps in some sort of vm setup.
It's also entirely possible that by the time there are enough mac customers there will also be either native osx support for wpf, or some sort of rapid development tool for mac/iphone that could be trivially ported too. It's also possible that with the coming release of windows7 that XP will drop in price so much that it doesn't make sense not to have a copy running in a vm with your mac.
I would also repeat my earlier comment in the thread about being polite and respectful. Theer is nothing wrong and insulting about asking WotC to develop the DDI tools for macs. It is certainly something that they are aware of, and something that they certainly, as the quote above notes, took into consideration.
This thread allows WotC to know that there are mac users out there that would like to be able to use the full DDI suite of tools without having to run Bootcamp or use some other technique.
Edit from ORC_KiRin: I've removed content from this thread because baiting is a Code of Conduct Violation, and to preserve continuity on the thread. Please head mudbunny's advice on keeping things civil.
In general I think the general tone is that we would like to see a mac version. While running a VM or bootcamp maybe an option.. it is really not a solution. but for now at least I will make do with VMWare until "hopefully" a native mac version does become available.
Really the app feels like something that would shine as an AJAX web application, and this is definitely the best way to get instant compatibility with any platform. This does seem to be the direction that utility applications are going across the software industry and I was surprised and disappointed when I first heard that the character builder was to be a standalone application.
A thought for those discussing the business aspects of catering to the smaller mac userbase: remember that these are users with the disposable income to purchase a mac to begin with, and therefore more likely to be unphased by the pricing of DDi.
If character builder ran natively on a Mac, I'd have subscribed months ago...
...I'm just sayin'.
Blame it on 3 years of odious "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" advertising foisted on us by Apple.
More then half of which have false statements.
More then half of which have false statements.
The intent of this thread was NOT Mac vs PC.
But if you're gonna bring it up, at least 1/2 the statements are true, while the current Microsoft adds are almost pure fabrication.
I agree with the web app sentiment, 110%. DND insider could have been a very very cool web application (think quake live, minus the quake).
This is from one of the (ex)-devs on DDI and macs:
I would have love to have done a mac version. I have a mac. I also have an iphone.
When I originally joined the project though I was given a 6 month time frame to full release, 3 months to beta, and by the way, that includes the time I could spend hiring a staff. Staff was, fortunately, hired in short order, and I was lucky to get some great people on the team. With the short schedule though we were making decisions between releasing it as a web app, or perhaps winforms. We mocked up a web app and it wasn't responsive enough, we mocked up a winforms prototype, and it was slow and lacked the ability to do all the things we wanted to do so we ported to WPF which set us back a week but was so worth it. We were able to do more things, have better control of the UI and development time was very fast.
Given the short schedule that we had it wouldn't have been reasonable to make a multi-platform version. Once we were done with the initial build I did cost out what it would take to make a mac version, as I think it is short sighted not to make one. The problem being that Wizards just doesn't have enough mac customers yet. They would need something like 10 times as many in order for it to break even, and that's not counting the fact that the majority of mac users can run windows apps in some sort of vm setup.
It's also entirely possible that by the time there are enough mac customers there will also be either native osx support for wpf, or some sort of rapid development tool for mac/iphone that could be trivially ported too. It's also possible that with the coming release of windows7 that XP will drop in price so much that it doesn't make sense not to have a copy running in a vm with your mac.
I was just never satisfied with this:
We mocked up a web app and it wasn't responsive enough, we mocked up a winforms prototype, and it was slow and lacked the ability to do all the things we wanted to do so we ported to WPF which set us back a week but was so worth it.
switching to WPF was the one thing that made the suite single platform. honestly with ajax today, how can a web app not be responsive enough? winforms couldn't do what you wanted to do?
This answer is:
When I originally joined the project though I was given a 6 month time frame to full release, 3 months to beta
That is why we'll never have a multiplatform version of the character builder. (unless the DDI team drops WPF)
to elaborate. WPF is a windows api that's really targeted at post XP systems. The mono project has "no plans" for implementing WPF into mono.
Oh yes, and I'm also very thankful that the application is local and not on the internet since it can be accessed from a laptop or other location not connected to the internet at the time of use. Very handy.
If my memory serves me correctly, Wizards originally intended (and you can verify this through the Gencon preview of 4e back in 2007) to release a software suite that would allow for the entire D&D experience to be virtualized through the computer for players to connect through the internet.
With this in mind, I'm not surprised that the Character Builder ended up a Windows application. In my mind (likely biased for being a Windows XP user), I envision the Character Modeler (or whatever it's named), DM Tools and the Game Table to all be programmed to run with the .Net framework. I also would predict that, in light of the "popularity" of DirectX interfacing, all mentioned programs except for the Character Builder would utilize DX9/10's 3d rendering. I understand that OpenGL still exists as a viable rendering platform, but it seems like that would require additional programming knowledge where it seems easier for the DDI team to continue with their slew of Windows-oriented programmers.
Considering the timeframe that was given to Elf to make the Character Builder, I think we should even count outselves lucky if the rest of the programs get released rather than scrapped, even if only Windows users get to see the results (and it seems that Wizards didn't even prioritize the creation of the Character Builder, a tool that was promised to the community over a year before 4e's release, until after the release of the primary core books; I'm sure this was unintentional, but it says a lot about the chaotic internal structure of Wizard's D&D division).
I think the most important thing to keep in mind here is that the only way Wizards will be able to meet the demands of the consumer is if we give a clear voice to what we want from them. The more attention we give to the need for a fully-functional, multi-platform suite of DDI-suscribed computer tools, the more likely Wizards will alot the funds and manpower to achieve these goals.
Frankly, what got me interested in 4e before its release was the preview of the DDI tools shown at GenCon (or was it Origins?) that would allow me to play D&D through the computer with my friends, should I ever have to move away to a point where I can't regularly visit. The Compendium is surely useful from what my friends have shown me, but I want a fully-functional set of software that will let me virtualize the D&D experience before I justify giving Wizards a monthly stipend for their services.
Edit: Anyone heard any news of whether or not Wizards will share the 4e license to a game developer so we get a 4th edition successor to Neverwinter Nights 2?
For my group, we started using computer tools to aid our game when we were all still in the same city. As fate would have it, we now all live in different cities/ states/ timezones. We have tried a lot of different software packages that will let us play online, and I think we have the best one right now with d20Pro. The guys who develop this software all come to DragonCon/ Other cons throughout the year, and I suggest anyone looking for a way to keep their games alive when people start moving hither and yon to give them a good look.
Oh, and you can get their stuff to work on a Mac and a PC!
Thanks again for the kind words. I too agree that we need to show that there is interest. I know we hear "there are just not enough Mac users for the software", but I really believe there are more there than the development architects realize... we obviously don't use it if there is nothing there to use... hence why I am holding out on buying DDI until a Mac version is available.
In addition since the "new hot thing" in portable computing is Linux Netbooks, to not provide Linux support is just shooting yourself in the foot.
According to the Economist and most (non MS funded) business/industry mags, the way the market is going is "good enough" computing - which means netbooks and 'basic' computers. The leading OS on netbooks is linux *shrug*. For folks who want to use a laptop as part of their gaming gear a netbook makes the most sense because it so light and takes up less table space.
So... the character builder is not some crazy super performance 3d shooter - if it was written correctly (i.e. in a object oriented programming language in a platform independent or posix compliant fashion) it should be comparatively trivial to do version for multiple platforms, and not providing them is both alienating a good chunk of the potential subscribers AND chaining the program to a sinking ship.
I know Windows had to be the first choice for WotC simply because of market share. And I know how complicated this program must have been to write (from personal experience). But I would like to see a Mac version done eventually, if only to keep from excluding all the Mac users who aren't willing to (or can't) do the considerable extra work necessary to use the virtual environment.
The character builder is a great program and there's a whole new audience out there on Macs who can be brought into D&D (along with their wallets).
I also have a Mac. What would other Mac users recommend as the best (simplest, most user-friendly) software to use that would let me use the Character Builder on my system? I've seen a few mentions of various programs around here that would make it work, but I'm wondering what would be the simplest or most straightforward for this purpose.
Using Bootcamp, which is provided by Apple, is probably the simplest. Of course that would require rebooting into Windows, a sad thing under any circumstances. It wouldn't require the purchase of anything else (other than Windows).
If you want a virtual solution, VMWare Fusion and Parallels are the two big hitters. Which one is better at any given time flips back and forth. I own both but I tend to stick with Fusion for what it's worth. Installation of either is easy.
I complicated (getting all the hardware like printers and so on working in the virtual environment) and when parallels is running, I can't use my printer for Mac programs.
You could also go with installing a PDF printer driver in your Windows VM.
Since MS saw fit to not provide certain useful features to their users such as direct print to PDF (neither does the CB for that matter which astounds me), you have to get some 3rd party software.
Then you can print directly to PDF (I do it on my OS X drive) and print from there.
It's an extra step but in the end you have a nice PDF saved off and Windows isn't taking over your printer.
Having that PDF is incredibly useful. For instance, if I'm running a one shot it allows me to make the pre-gens and email them out to the players before hand.
Windows, for most companies, is still the "best bet" for successful software - it still has the broadest installed support base, period.
Actually for a software company these days their "best bet" is cross platform availability. Writing code in such a way they can port it easily.
The ONLY reason not to make this design decision is lack of business sense, or lack of programming talent.
If all they have is people who know MS stuff, .NET ASP whatever, then that is what we get. What we do by voicing discontent is incentivize the business side to kick the tech side into gear, or to give them the money they need to do it right.
A python program based on QT would have run on 4-5 different platforms with a limited amount of effort for example, one of them mobile.
Wizards simply shot themselves in the foot choosing .NET the same way VMWare did, and VMWare has had to backpedal too after a user revolt.
Five (5) Mac users in my gaming group.
Silverlight seems to be a good option, as it is (according to the Wikipedia entry) designed to allow cross-platform access to .net developed apps.
I'm certain that there would be limitations, as there always is, but still, Siverlight looks like a good option at first blush... cross-platform, free (EDIT: perhaps not entirely free, except in its Moonlight version), and .net compatible.
As far as the on-again-off-again troll-fest that is the "Apple has such a small market share" debate, as pointed out in thisArs Technica story, the numbers are somewhat dubious and confusing, but that does not mean Apple is not in its ascendancy.
You could also go with installing a PDF printer driver in your Windows VM.
Since MS saw fit to not provide certain useful features to their users such as direct print to PDF (neither does the CB for that matter which astounds me), you have to get some 3rd party software.
Then you can print directly to PDF (I do it on my OS X drive) and print from there.
As an aside, you CAN set up a virtual printer in windoze to output a .ps (postscript) file that Preview will open (and convert to PDF) on the Mac side of things. No extra software on the pc side required.
Anyway, to put my 2 cents into this discussion, I am a Mac programmer and I would have NO hestitation about creating Mac versions of the various programs (Character Builder, Monster Builder, etc) except that my efforts would violate WOTC's copyrights leading to monetary fines, jail, etc. If the copyright thing was not an issue, I'd start right now.
And, I'm not meaning to denegrate the fine efforts of the current programmers in ANY way (I KNOW how difficult it is to go from vague concept to an actual program), but the vast majority of the functionality of these programs is just database work - it's not rocket-science. Creating a Mac version of a program from an existing, functional version on another platform is MUCH easier than starting from scratch. All I would ask is "LET ME". (((and I'm not holding my breath on that one)))
Regards.
"comon' Wizards, let him!"
As an aside, you CAN set up a virtual printer in windoze to output a .ps (postscript) file that Preview will open (and convert to PDF) on the Mac side of things. No extra software on the pc side required.
Anyway, to put my 2 cents into this discussion, I am a Mac programmer and I would have NO hestitation about creating Mac versions of the various programs (Character Builder, Monster Builder, etc) except that my efforts would violate WOTC's copyrights leading to monetary fines, jail, etc. If the copyright thing was not an issue, I'd start right now.
And, I'm not meaning to denegrate the fine efforts of the current programmers in ANY way (I KNOW how difficult it is to go from vague concept to an actual program), but the vast majority of the functionality of these programs is just database work - it's not rocket-science. Creating a Mac version of a program from an existing, functional version on another platform is MUCH easier than starting from scratch. All I would ask is "LET ME". (((and I'm not holding my breath on that one)))
Regards.
This character builder needs to be able to run off a Mac without having to run vmFusion or some such... really, make it web-based and OS independent. I have been a D&D player for 25 years or so now, but this is the kind of thing that makes me consider quitting this RPG for another one where I feel more welcome.
By all means let's have a cross-platform version of the app but a web application is about as much use as a chocolate teapot to me. I like being able to use my computers without them whinging that they can't connect to the intertubes every three minutes.
And while we're at it lets have most of it written in Python, source available including a full set of automated regression tests and a fully documented database schema so we can modify the sodding thing to get it to do the minority things we want (okay I want, I'm selfish, I admit it) and make sure we don't break it at the same time.
Cheers,
Ash
I do not know if this has been mentioned as I wanted to skip over all the bashers and haters posts.
Google has announced that they themselves are working on an Operating System for Netbooks and possibly even higher end PCs. They may leverage their Android OS which will not install .NET or the Character Builder.
So to the Developers at WOTC. Thank you for all the fantastic tools you have worked so hard on, and for making the Majority of them available via Web so that I am able to access them without having to launch a Virtual Windows machine and use up my resources for 1 application.
I just wish the Character Builder was available on multiple OSes.
-Kruz
By all means let's have a cross-platform version of the app but a web application is about as much use as a chocolate teapot to me. I like being able to use my computers without them whinging that they can't connect to the intertubes every three minutes.
And while we're at it lets have most of it written in Python, source available including a full set of automated regression tests and a fully documented database schema so we can modify the sodding thing to get it to do the minority things we want (okay I want, I'm selfish, I admit it) and make sure we don't break it at the same time.
Cheers,
Ash
Well other than it being in Java and not Python and it's not fully* ducumented PCGen fill's all the requirements that I've seen in this thread.
Of course the only downside is that all the data belongs to WotC and we can only give the users the framework to put their data into.
*: By not fully I mean that we have everything that we know of for the data files documented, but we know there's functionality that isn't documented because it's hidden in the code.
Do a search for SDL. I believe it runs on any major platform (including some of the console game systems). In conjunction with OpenGL it can even do 3D using hardware acceleration for many of the major platforms.
With a little planning and an abstraction layer (about 10% more resources to develop) to separate the program components from the platform specific components they could have the CB and any other program running on just about any platform with a minimum of work.
I just think whoever designed the programs didn't really think ahead too much.
I just think whoever designed the programs didn't really think ahead too much.
Modern software engineers are not trained in SDL/OpenGL (sadly). And even those api's require a bit of platform specific tweaks to make them work. If they wanted true multi-platform, they'd have gone web based (which was on the table).
What killed DDI multiplatform prospects was the rush to get it out. (the DDI team had/has impossible deadlines)
Modern software engineers are not trained in SDL/OpenGL (sadly). And even those api's require a bit of platform specific tweaks to make them work. If they wanted true multi-platform, they'd have gone web based (which was on the table).
What killed DDI multiplatform prospects was the rush to get it out. (the DDI team had/has impossible deadlines)
Its not difficult to learn SDL/OpenGL. A weekend seminar or class would be about all it takes an experienced 3D programmer to learn it.
I've used SDL on Linux and Windows and never had to tweak them. They pretty much abstract everything including data types to be platform independent. I haven't done all that much with them, so I could be wrong.
regardless, direct sdl/opengl is quite a bit lower level in terms of language use. It's like asking a straigh python progammer to design a gui system (this is do-able, I know, the issue is and has always been -> Time). The current apps are written via WPF "Windows Presentation Format/frame/whatever".
you're correct. opengl/sdl itself is platform independent. It's everything else.
regardless, direct sdl/opengl is quite a bit lower level in terms of language use. It's like asking a straigh python progammer to design a gui system (this is do-able, I know, the issue is and has always been -> Time). The current apps are written via WPF "Windows Presentation Format/frame/whatever".
Well they could use a higher level tool, like Irrlicht which is based on SDL and is platform independent.
I would have love to have done a mac version. I have a mac. I also have an iphone.
When I originally joined the project though I was given a 6 month time frame to full release, 3 months to beta, and by the way, that includes the time I could spend hiring a staff. Staff was, fortunately, hired in short order, and I was lucky to get some great people on the team. With the short schedule though we were making decisions between releasing it as a web app, or perhaps winforms. We mocked up a web app and it wasn't responsive enough, we mocked up a winforms prototype, and it was slow and lacked the ability to do all the things we wanted to do so we ported to WPF which set us back a week but was so worth it. We were able to do more things, have better control of the UI and development time was very fast.
Given the short schedule that we had it wouldn't have been reasonable to make a multi-platform version. Once we were done with the initial build I did cost out what it would take to make a mac version, as I think it is short sighted not to make one. The problem being that Wizards just doesn't have enough mac customers yet. They would need something like 10 times as many in order for it to break even, and that's not counting the fact that the majority of mac users can run windows apps in some sort of vm setup.
It's also entirely possible that by the time there are enough mac customers there will also be either native osx support for wpf, or some sort of rapid development tool for mac/iphone that could be trivially ported too. It's also possible that with the coming release of windows7 that XP will drop in price so much that it doesn't make sense not to have a copy running in a vm with your mac.
there you go
there you go
Wow where'd you pull that from? I'd like to read the full thread/article. With the proper planning it would be equally trivial to use something like Irrlicht or SDL to implement it.
The major problem is that you have to DESIGN it to be multi-platform from the beginning. If you don't do that, then your going to spend about 45%-75% of the time you spent on the original porting it. If you design it to be multi-platform (i.e. abstraction layer, object separation, etc. etc...) it will only cost you about 10%-20% more time (including the original) than it would just to make it for a single platform. So tell me which one makes sense? 45%-75% or 10%-20%. You just gotta look down the line.
Wow where'd you pull that from? I'd like to read the full thread/article. With the proper planning it would be equally trivial to use something like Irrlicht or SDL to implement it.
The major problem is that you have to DESIGN it to be multi-platform from the beginning. If you don't do that, then your going to spend about 45%-75% of the time you spent on the original porting it. If you design it to be multi-platform (i.e. abstraction layer, object separation, etc. etc...) it will only cost you about 10%-20% more time (including the original) than it would just to make it for a single platform. So tell me which one makes sense? 45%-75% or 10%-20%. You just gotta look down the line.
Most likely everything you say is right.
However, look at some of the things elf said. Just not enough Mac customers, in fact, they would need like a 100 times more (Which could be an exaggeration).
Even if it just cost 10-20% more to do both at the same time, if there isn't going to be a return on that 10-20% cost that equals profit, a corporation most likely just isn't going to do it.
Most corporations just don't think like that. Since software is very expensive to develop, 10-20% can be a lot of extra eating into profits.
Not to mention, Mac users aren't without options.
Most likely everything you say is right.
However, look at some of the things elf said. Just not enough Mac customers, in fact, they would need like a 100 times more (Which could be an exaggeration).
Even if it just cost 10-20% more to do both at the same time, if there isn't going to be a return on that 10-20% cost that equals profit, a corporation most likely just isn't going to do it.
Most corporations just don't think like that. Since software is very expensive to develop, 10-20% can be a lot of extra eating into profits.
Not to mention, Mac users aren't without options.
I agree, if its not financially viable then it shouldn't be done. They do have options as you say, but they are less favorable options than actually having the product. Not to mention it costs more for them (they have to own a copy of XP or Vista in order to run it under a VM), which is not a good way to make friends with the Mac users.
I'm wondering if they did a survey or not? without a survey of how many Mac users would purchase DDI if the programs were portable there's really no saying how many Mac users they are losing profits from. I mean sure it might be only 1% of all D&D players, but then again it might be 45%. Without a survey we really can't know.
second, windows 7 is free right now, just FYI, so virtualization is actually a free possibility atm.
they surveyed based on WoTC's web traffic at the time, you can get the os based on visitor reports.
second, windows 7 is free right now, just FYI, so virtualization is actually a free possibility atm.
yes it is possible to get the info from the web traffic, but has this actually been done? I haven't seen it anywhere have you?
Its probably a free beta with many many bugs. Does it even run Vista/XP programs?
and I use windows 7 RC as my main OS, works amazing.
Elf said in his post I quoted, that they surveyed based on web data.
and I use windows 7 RC as my main OS, works amazing.
Oh ok well then maybe it was a sound decision.
and they may be doing this now, we simple don't know. WoTC probably feels different about os x/linux support now.
Sure, but no one official will comment. This is because anytime someone official makes a comment and it riles up the fans they get fired. Which sucks for everyone because we can't get a single statement of fact from anyone unless its been mangled through their lawyers and marketing departments. Corporations should be wiped from the face of the earth as an unfortunate mistake.
Fact of the matter is that they [i]did[/] give out release info at one point, and it blew up in there face. So they learned the lesson.
On a level, I agree with you. But this is not the place for that debate.
Fact of the matter is that they [i]did[/] give out release info at one point, and it blew up in there face. So they learned the lesson.
yeah your probably right. I should start a thread ranting on corporations and how they limit companies from creating good solid products.
Yeah, but they could give out reverse information. An example would be:
"We will not have the Character Builder released, if ever, for Mac for at least 2 years."
"The Virtual Table Top / Game Table will not be released for five years at the earliest"
This would give us information without tying them down.
yeah your probably right. I should start a thread ranting on corporations and how they limit companies from creating good solid products.
Welcome to corporate life.
Welcome to corporate life.
Yeah, I know. Really I don't see how people can't see corporations in general as a bad idea with what has happened with all of the economic stuff as well as the corruption (Enron +). I don't possibly see any redeeming qualities.
On a level, I agree with you. But this is not the place for that debate.
Well, even if the previous software was done with windows in mind, it wouldn't hurt them to build any new software with an abstraction layer between the windows components and the actual program. This wouldn't take but a single day to implement as a simple pass through. After that it would be much much easier to program ports on other platforms.
Ok, to get back on track. If they did this, then they could go back and easily program the backend for the new platform and plug it into the abstraction layer in the window's code's place. This would only take 10%-20% of the time it would take to port a complete project that was completely windows based without the abstraction layer.
Here's the added bonus: they could then take the above code and use it with the same abstraction layer to create new software like the Monster Tool (snicker) without taking any extra time or effort to port it. That's right people after the first port there would be no work to port further projects using the abstraction layer and platform specific code to the platforms they already ported to.
This would save massive time and effort not just in the long run, but in the one more project run. In the long run we are talking about 45% minimum savings of time and effort for EACH additional project. So if they have 5 campaign tools that is 225% savings, just on that project.
If they were to then extend the same abstraction layer and platform specific code to be able to do 3D and networking which would take a mere 35% effort they could then create the VTT/GT AND make it cross platform with little or no effort and cost.
Multi-platform? Don't make me laugh. Portions of this website won't even work on Safari, a popular multi-platform web browser.
Make the Character Builder work on a Mac? I'd be satisfied if they simply made it work. After all this time, I am still continually encountering bugs and errors and random things that inexplicably don't work right.
WotC didn't simply bite of more then they could chew, they bit off more then they could even fit in their mouth in the first place.
It was shortsighted to make the Character Builder a Windows-only program. However, considering how many times WotC's forums and/or D&D site (including the compendium) craps out and becomes unavailable, I wouldn't trust them to make a web-based application either.
Multi-platform? Don't make me laugh. Portions of this website won't even work on Safari, a popular multi-platform web browser.
Make the Character Builder work on a Mac? I'd be satisfied if they simply made it work. After all this time, I am still continually encountering bugs and errors and random things that inexplicably don't work right.
WotC didn't simply bite of more then they could chew, they bit off more then they could even fit in their mouth in the first place.
I have to admit the website annoys the crap out of me. Instead of using a pre-built website template and adjusting it to how they wanted, they decided to do from scratch what hundreds of other people have out there for a tiny cost. If they had that kind of mentality on the VTT and other software projects I can see why they failed miserably.
bump
?? srsly ??
?? srsly ??
!!! yeah, srsly !!!
I'm dead serious about this thread. Please bring Character Builder to the Mac!
I agree, but it will never happen...
Its a flipping little utility - port it for goodness sakes. It doesn't do 3rd. It doesn't do crazy math. It does some conditional logic and puts up some data that should be easily skinnable.
Hire 2 guys out of college, give them all they can drink Jolt, fritos, 30K each and a 2 Months to finish it. Write it in Java or Python and be done with it. There is NOTHING that it does that needs to be platform specific. If the guys who did it the first time told you so, get them more training. If they were given a spec sheet the required it, send the guys doing the project characterization back for retraining.
Heck It should be pretty easy to even put out a version that works on an iPhone/G-phone
Just a clarification - Multiplatform/platform independent means IT WORKS ON LINUX.
If it doesn't its a fail.
Seriously You've got "something" now. In the background there needs to be version 2.0 where you can do it right and replace the first one.
A full rewrite of what? it doesn't do all that much. Heck I bet some enterprising Mac programmer could take the XML and build his own CB, then tie it into the compendium and make it work much better.
then go find that guy and have him do it...until the rest of DDI is up this is a less then needed change.
then go find that guy and have him do it...until the rest of DDI is up this is a less then needed change.
I think the huge outcry from this thread proves it is a needed change. However, the fact that it has not been worked in, and the comments about IT support within Wizards in general gives me pause on the phrase 'the rest of DDI is up.'
Making the software multi-platform just makes sense.
then go find that guy and have him do it...until the rest of DDI is up this is a less then needed change.
I feel sorry for you if you think that magically one day DDI will ever be "up". Its been way too long, and they have done everything but say that the GT and CV are dead. I mean I want it too, but its just time we all let go of the dream that D&D could go digital with the current company (Hasbro and Wotc). Its just not going to happen at this point.
I think the huge outcry from this thread proves it is a needed change. However, the fact that it has not been worked in, and the comments about IT support within Wizards in general gives me pause on the phrase 'the rest of DDI is up.'
Making the software multi-platform just makes sense.
Even if they don't go multi-platform right away building the software to be easily portable is the best way to go anyway especially if there is even a remote chance that one day it will be ported. They had a 6 month deadline to get it up and running from code they didn't understand, but seriously those kinds of deadlines shouldn't have been given in the first place. They should have announced all the crap that happened (which on the DDI VCL chat http://sites.google.com/site/ddivclchat/ we were able to Google and piece together) then said "We have to start over we will have something out for you no earlier than 9 months." At which point they could have taken volunteers and interns and had a really nice cross-platform app done in that time, but whatever bigger corporations have fallen from lesser failures.
And in our current economy you can see that of the major computer suppliers only one has said that they do not forsee sales dropping off a cliff. Hint. It's not Dell. Hint #2, it begins with "A"
Heh... while I know this post is oooold... I couldn't help but laugh at this. "Saying" your sales won't drop off is one thing, it actually happening is another.
A quick search shows that in Q2 '09 (reported July 15th) in the US Apple dropped to 5th in sales from 4th place, being overtaken by Toshiba. The top 3 are Dell, HP, and Acer respectively. Worldwide Apple isn't in the top 5 which are HP, Dell, Acer, Lenovo and Toshiba respectively.
I understand your marketing people. I happen to think they're not totally with it on current trends, but hey, these things happen.
Putting your time and effort to support a platform with 7.6% of the computer market (in the US, it's even less worldwide, about 3.5% at least as of 2008) as opposed to the huge majority that use a PC platform is a poor choice if you have limited resources. So it isn't just "current trends."
Apple has been posting giant profits many more consecutive quarters - and increasing in sales volume compared to itself year over year - much more so than any of the big PC makers... no matter how you spin it, Apple users are a bigger voice now - and to ignore us is to risk pushing us away.
It's not spin. The fact is, their computer sales have been dropping steadily for a little while (they were 3rd back in 08 before being overtaken by Acer, now 5th). Now with the economy being shot, their sales are worse since they cost more than a comparable PC in either a desktop or laptop configuration. iPod, iTunes and iPhone are driving their sales. Those gadgets single handedly saved that company from dying (after Bill Gates gave them a huge infusion of cash to keep from going out of business), have huge profit margins and are why they have such a good balance sheet each quarter, even now. As soon as sales start to drop off they release a newer updated version of the product and people go out in droves to buy them. (I personally hate Apple. I dislike their corporate proprietary philosophy mostly, but I am an avowed gadget head... so I hate to admit it, but I own an iPod. :P) The funny thing is... it's sort of like releasing 3.0... then 3.5, then 4e... but only WotC gets the hate and it's not as expensive. ;)
In other words, I'd be careful about making huge sweeping statements about how ingrained Macs are in regards to app development in a niche market.
I think the huge outcry from this thread proves it is a needed change.
I think we can both agree that a handful of people on an internet forum isn't a real representative sample of anything, be it Mac users, people who like calamari, or anything else.
Making the software multi-platform just makes sense.
This seems more of an emotional response. To you, and anyone else who uses a Mac, sure, it makes sense. To the company that has to hire programmers to do the work of programming the software for a small user base and keep them on to make any necessary updates due to new rules being released, does grabbing a small percentage of a small percentage of the market make fiscal sense?
While D&D is obviously the 400-pound gorilla in the RPG publishing market, it's still a niche market. How many DDI subs do they have to sell to make a profit on it? It likely won't be considered for a break even prospect. There has to be real value to be gained by undertaking the costs of the project before they'd do it.
From my experience with "PC only" software, converting it to Mac is actually often really easy... but as many have also discussed, why tie to a platform at all? Make it web-based and be done with it.
If you just want to bash Mac, please make a different thread for it. :-)
Heh... while I know this post is oooold... I couldn't help but laugh at this. "Saying" your sales won't drop off is one thing, it actually happening is another.
A quick search shows that in Q2 '09 (reported July 15th) in the US Apple dropped to 5th in sales from 4th place, being overtaken by Toshiba. The top 3 are Dell, HP, and Acer respectively. Worldwide Apple isn't in the top 5 which are HP, Dell, Acer, Lenovo and Toshiba respectively.
Putting your time and effort to support a platform with 7.6% of the computer market (in the US, it's even less worldwide, about 3.5% at least as of 2008) as opposed to the huge majority that use a PC platform is a poor choice if you have limited resources. So it isn't just "current trends."
It's not spin. The fact is, their computer sales have been dropping steadily for a little while (they were 3rd back in 08 before being overtaken by Acer, now 5th). Now with the economy being shot, their sales are worse since they cost more than a comparable PC in either a desktop or laptop configuration. iPod, iTunes and iPhone are driving their sales. Those gadgets single handedly saved that company from dying (after Bill Gates gave them a huge infusion of cash to keep from going out of business), have huge profit margins and are why they have such a good balance sheet each quarter, even now. As soon as sales start to drop off they release a newer updated version of the product and people go out in droves to buy them. (I personally hate Apple. I dislike their corporate proprietary philosophy mostly, but I am an avowed gadget head... so I hate to admit it, but I own an iPod. :P) The funny thing is... it's sort of like releasing 3.0... then 3.5, then 4e... but only WotC gets the hate and it's not as expensive. ;)
In other words, I'd be careful about making huge sweeping statements about how ingrained Macs are in regards to app development in a niche market.
I think we can both agree that a handful of people on an internet forum isn't a real representative sample of anything, be it Mac users, people who like calamari, or anything else.
This seems more of an emotional response. To you, and anyone else who uses a Mac, sure, it makes sense. To the company that has to hire programmers to do the work of programming the software for a small user base and keep them on to make any necessary updates due to new rules being released, does grabbing a small percentage of a small percentage of the market make fiscal sense?
While D&D is obviously the 400-pound gorilla in the RPG publishing market, it's still a niche market. How many DDI subs do they have to sell to make a profit on it? It likely won't be considered for a break even prospect. There has to be real value to be gained by undertaking the costs of the project before they'd do it.
Depending on just exactly what features of .NET are used - it may be possible to port/recompile the Windows source code pretty much as-is using Mono (open source .NET implementation). Mono even has an open source development IDE that will even open Visual Studio projects directly.
However - Mono is does not yet fully support all functionality of .NET 3.5, so while it would enable builds to be built for multiple platforms using the same core code, chances are it is still going to require some tweaking, to get around some of the unsupported libraries.
Shaun
However - Mono is does not yet fully support all functionality of .NET 3.5, so while it would enable builds to be built for multiple platforms using the same core code, chances are it is still going to require some tweaking, to get around some of the unsupported libraries.
Shaun
this has been talked about a lot in this thread and every other linux/mac thread.
sometimes I wish you guys would RTFT
this has been talked about a lot in this thread and every other linux/mac thread.
sometimes I wish you guys would RTFT
Agreed... but at the same time you have to have some sympathy for people new to the thread... it has more responses than the thread "What are your top 5 most desired improvements? " Just the activity this thread gets I think helps enforce the point I was trying to make originally... there is a lot of interest in being able to use the character builder from non-Windows (Mac especially) machines.
While I respect what you are saying, I disagree with everything you have said... but once again, this is NOT a thread about how well Apple/ other PC makers are doing in the marketplace... it is about how there is a desire to have Character Builder made for the Mac. While we could point and counter point citing all sorts of numbers from the internet... talking about the success or lack of success of Apple totally misses the point.
It has a lot to do with it. It's a cost/benefit issue for the company expected to do the programming. It's easy to say "here's a group of folks who use Macs and would like the software to be programmed for it." It's another thing to justify the cost of doing so. Is the installed base big enough to justify the expense? Will it generate enough revenue to support itself?
Maybe there's enough to justify it. In that case we likely will see it. If not? While it's altruistic of a company to take a loss on providing such a thing, realistically you can't expect them to do so. The presence of a desire for a Mac port is great. Whether it makes financial sense is whole other story. I have a desire for Hostess to bring back the Chocolicious snack cakes (and the Leopards, and Devil's Food Twinkies for that matter! :P) and I can probably find a sizable group of people that want them back too, but that doesn't mean the sales base is there for them to be manufactured again.
From my experience with "PC only" software, converting it to Mac is actually often really easy... but as many have also discussed, why tie to a platform at all? Make it web-based and be done with it.
If you just want to bash Mac, please make a different thread for it. :-)
I'm certainly not bashing Macs. (at least, not here, not now :P) Only discussing the realities and the speculations of the situation. Personally I like having the installed program better than it being web based. Their one web based program to date that relies heavily on a database (encounter builder) can be sluggish and a bear to work with at times. Most likely because their server set up isn't designed for such a thing, but imagine it on a grander scale with the CB and the forthcoming Monster Builder and whatever other apps they are making. Heck, getting CB updates right when the new update comes out can be trying.
It's easy to say "Just make it web based and be done with it," but there's a lot of considerations for such an undertaking. Not just programming but hardware and infrastructure considerations for the amount of traffic they may generate with such a set up.
I'm all for more people getting to use the tools, but it's always going to come with cost-benefit considerations, and nothing is so easy that they can just wave their magic wand and make it so... even if they do sell games dealing with Magic. ;)
To the request for a MAC version: I agree from playing with CB its likely not terribly difficult to port if you have someone who knows what they are doing. Once it's done it done. All the updates are probably put into some kind of Excel spreadsheet before they .exe'em anyway so even up-dates shouldn't present a problem.
To those who say why should they?: Well why not? It's relatively easy to do and would probably pay for itself in subscriptions within a month, maybe not a huge profit margin over all, but certainly not a loss. Besides what difference does it make to people with PCs anyway? I would think that the more people who have access to the product the better, no skin off your hide.
So in my opinion WoC should port it to OSX, or better, re-write it as a web app. They have nothing to loose and everything to gain. PC folks should support this as well, because its what comrades do, and us D&D geeks need to stick together. How else will we overcome those jock knuckleheads...:D
This whole Mac PC thing is just a huge ******* contest anyway. If you have the cash, like the OS and the Apple design sense, then you'll probably buy a Mac. If you don't, you don't. Who gives a cr*p anyway, go find something important to talk about, something that actually makes a difference. Like health care, or the environment, or what to eat for lunch...
They have nothing to loose ...
Except time and money. Those are pretty important.
Perhaps if a couple more people at Wizards of the Coast used macs, the 4th ed D&D graphic design would be better. Ok, that's a joke, it doesn't matter whether you use a PC or mac for design. Thing is -- how sucky is the graphic design of 4th ed as compared to 3 and 3.5??
Back to the point. Point is, the people in charge at WotC are acting like stuck up idiots. There are really REALLY terrible decisions being made. "Buy a PC" pffft. The new macs can run PC crap. But thing is -- WHY would you want to and risk getting a virus? "Oh... so there... you don't NEED a mac version afterall since you can run PC stuff" again... Windoze is an ugly OS. Even though we can run Windoze crap, a lot of us mac users choose not to if we can avoid it.
In my case however, because I'm a mac user... I "accidentally" purchased a mac that is giving me a good 7 years (and going) or computing power. Sucks that I had to get such a reliable machine, whereas if it were a crap PC I'd probably have to replace it a couple years ago.
Did we mention the bit about viruses?
WotC needs to wake up and start being more responsible. They need to start hiring people who can do a good job at things. Just look at these forums and you'll have a good idea of how hard it is to find the information you need. It's a joke.
To the guy who mentioned a web solution in the first place. That is the BEST thing to have. It's simple and easy to do, and is just the most logical thing in my professional opinion (being a graphic designer and web developer myself). Again, WotC is showing just how far behind they really are when it comes to current trends and technology.
And here I thought the Aussies were lazy-arses.
...and please nobody mention the graphic design of the current Magic the Gathering cards. f--k~!!!! I mean did WotC fire or **** off their good designers or what??!?
Seriously. What blind idiot is running the show?
Except time and money. Those are pretty important.
Don't be a knob. They won't loose money, it will be made up with the new subscriptions bought by Mac users who play D&D. I'm pretty sure that there are enough of them out there to cover it. The cost of porting is much lower than it was even a few years ago, OSX uses a UNIX core which makes it a pretty strait forward job, and there are plenty of experienced people out there to do it.
1.4 million Mac's were sold in the US last year alone, most of them to households (where most people do their non-work stuff). Macs have tripled their market share in the last four years (3.25%-10%) and are about 10% of the total market share, however, most Macs are sold to students and home users. That means that the share of computers at home is probably higher than 10%, and I would imagine that people use CB at home more than at work.
But even if we just go with the 10%, thats still enough potential users to pay for the cost of porting, and then some.
They have the potential to lose time and money should they port to the Mac. If they consider it, they're going to do research into the costs and potential earnings. If the costs are greater than the potential earnings, it's not going to get ported. To do otherwise would be suicide.
How many people will use the Mac to play D&D? How many people use a Mac to view this website? How many people with a Mac will subscribe to D&Di, should they spend the time and money to port it? Will it be enough to offset it?
They have the potential to lose time and money should they port to the Mac. If they consider it, they're going to do research into the costs and potential earnings. If the costs are greater than the potential earnings, it's not going to get ported. To do otherwise would be suicide.
The argument that Mac users don't use it when they don't have a choice is like saying Black people would not want to use a 'whites only' restaurant during segregation. What I am trying to say is, even if you don't see it there is a significant demand to make this usable on a Mac. Just call me Rosa Parks!
The argument that Mac users don't use it when they don't have a choice is like saying Black people would not want to use a 'whites only' restaurant during segregation. What I am trying to say is, even if you don't see it there is a significant demand to make this usable on a Mac. Just call me Rosa Parks!
... Next we'll be hearing about how Wizards is a bunch of Nazis persecuting the Mac community.This is going to be a business decision if it happens. It's not going to be a decision based on "ethics" nor a "moral" decision.
Don't be a knob. They won't loose money, it will be made up with the new subscriptions bought by Mac users who play D&D.
Accept they know that the number of people on macs isn't large enough to recover the cost of making a mac version. And they have told us that.
The cost of porting is much lower than it was even a few years ago, OSX uses a UNIX core which makes it a pretty strait forward job
How the hell does OSX being heavily derived from FreeBSD have anything to do with porting a Windows program heavily dependent on .NET? Do you program at all?
Using Qt in the first place might have been a better idea, but porting now is an expensive proposition when people can just run Windows on VirtualBox or some other VM instead.
Re: online solutions - then you'd just have people complaining that they can't build characters without internet access.
That's my $0.02
Accept they know that the number of people on macs isn't large enough to recover the cost of making a mac version. And they have told us that.
Actually, I think they didn't know - they said they would like to, but just decided to 'go with what (you) know'. Hence the value of this thread... so the next time they are making plans, they think "man, remember that 'Character Builder Needs to be able to run on a Mac' thread? Let's have a dialog on what it will take." I don't believe anyone in Wizards or out can know what the true number of Mac people who will buy it once they make it... except of course by the view count on this thread.
This is going to be a business decision if it happens. It's not going to be a decision based on "ethics" nor a "moral" decision.
That's a twist on what I said... what I am saying here is you can't say 'Mac People don't use it now' as evidence that they would not use it when it is available, because it does not exist for the Mac yet. Make sense?
So, to make my own Segregation comment, instead of being the Black guy that decided to stay at home and accept the segregation, be the Black activist that gets people together and gets things changed!
I lost my point somewhere along there...
That's a twist on what I said... what I am saying here is you can't say 'Mac People don't use it now' as evidence that they would not use it when it is available, because it does not exist for the Mac yet. Make sense?
Except they can us it in a windows emulator.
So, to make my own Segregation comment, instead of being the Black guy that decided to stay at home and accept the segregation, be the Black activist that gets people together and gets things changed!
Exactly why I started this thread... just call me Rosa Parks. :-)
Ah, right. But they can measure the amount of Mac people participating in the community. If they aren't active members of the community, they won't get counted as a potential customer and chances are they wouldn't even know a Mac version was released. Then, Wizards would see a lackluster rise in subscribers that would make them think "Man, we really did waste money doing that. I hope Hasbro doesn't fire us for that."
The other thing I think might be worth mentioning... if Mac users are not hitting up as much of the website in as great numbers because the support is not there, or would rather access with a Mac, but have Windows computer they can access with, the group may be underrepresented... but yes, again you are right... which is why it is a good thread to have for Mac users to be able to say 'another vote for having a Mac version!'.
And thanks everyone (nay-sayers included) for making this such a vibrant thread.
Except they can us it in a windows emulator.
Which means that they have to shell out money and computing power on an emulator - just to use a computing platform they wanted to avoid in the first place.
Even so, if they did, then how would Wizards be able to identify them as people who want a Mac version, but instead are using an emulator until a Mac version is available.
Actually, I think they didn't know - they said they would like to, but just decided to 'go with what (you) know'. Hence the value of this thread... so the next time they are making plans, they think "man, remember that 'Character Builder Needs to be able to run on a Mac' thread? Let's have a dialog on what it will take." I don't believe anyone in Wizards or out can know what the true number of Mac people who will buy it once they make it... except of course by the view count on this thread.
No, an ex-WoTC employee said that.
Ah, right. But they can measure the amount of Mac people participating in the community.
That and other sources. They have a good round idea about the number of Mac users and such.
Which means that they have to shell out money and computing power on an emulator - just to use a computing platform they wanted to avoid in the first place.
http://www.virtualbox.org/
Even so, if they did, then how would Wizards be able to identify them as people who want a Mac version, but instead are using an emulator until a Mac version is available.
Why should Wizards care? I mean, obviously those people can run the CB...
"...just to use a computing platform they wanted to avoid in the first place."
The people who replied in this thread that they want CB on a Mac do not want to run a emulator/ whatever... they want to run it native.
Why do you have to be so argumentative about people saying they want something? If someone said "I wish they made this shirt in blue" and you don't want to wear that shirt in blue, can't you just let people ask for what they want?
Why do you have to be so argumentative about people saying they want something? If someone said "I wish they made this shirt in blue" and you don't want to wear that shirt in blue, can't you just let people ask for what they want?
Because, as a user whose platform is also not supported by the CB, I'd rather WotC devote their limited programmer capacity to working on the Monster Builder and other new tools rather than appease the Windows-hating arrogance of some Mac users.
Because, as a user whose platform is also not supported by the CB, I'd rather WotC devote their limited programmer capacity to working on the Monster Builder and other new tools rather than appease the Windows-hating arrogance of some Mac users.
Did I come out here and bash your platform of choice? No.
Are you bashing Mac users? Yes.
You are warping this thread into a Mac vs PC debate... that still is not the intention of this thread. Please keep it clean.
Did I come out here and bash your platform of choice? No.
Are you bashing Mac users? Yes.
You are warping this thread into a Mac vs PC debate... that still is not the intention of this thread. Please keep it clean.
I'm not bashing Macs or Mac users as a whole. I'm bashing the idea that running CB on a VM is unacceptable because of a need to avoid a specific computing platform altogether.
As part of my college courses I had to run Linux using VMWare and do several tasks on it that had to do with programming.
It took about 10 minutes just to load the program and get Linux to start booting (that's just to get it started). Then I had to wait for Linux to boot up. Even after I had everything set up it took about 10-20 minutes to get into doing the activities I had to do. It also only ran about 3/4 the speed of windows because it was being emulated.
That is a huge hassle to create a character. Its almost faster to do it with a pencil some paper and the books.
This is why people want it ported to their specific platform.
Do you know how difficult it is to run those emulators?
As part of my college courses I had to run Linux using VMWare and do several tasks on it that had to do with programming.
It took about 10 minutes just to load the program and get Linux to start booting (that's just to get it started). Then I had to wait for Linux to boot up. Even after I had everything set up it took about 10-20 minutes to get into doing the activities I had to do. It also only ran about 3/4 the speed of windows because it was being emulated.
That is a huge hassle to create a character. Its almost faster to do it with a pencil some paper and the books.
This is why people want it ported to their specific platform.
Word!
Do you know how difficult it is to run those emulators?
Uh, given that I have one running in my screenshot, yes? It takes me about 30 seconds from starting the VM to when I can get the CB update screen to pop up; I just timed it. The speed difference is nonexistent, because VMs (along with your normal OS) are bound by I/O speed (i.e. the slowness of your hard drive), not by CPU. Hell, I've been running Windows guests on VMs for years now, and even back when I was on economy hardware several years ago the idea of taking 10 minutes to start up is completely ridiculous.
Do you know how difficult it is to run those emulators?
I'm curious, why you have so much trouble running software and such while everyone else seems to get along fine doing the very things you say are not working?
I'm not saying your lying about your experience with this. But it's confusing to me. You've had trouble running other game tables, to the point you can't even get them to install, or at least one of them to not install.
You now state that Emulators are difficult to run, even though people actually running them say, not true. There are even free ones that work just fine.
So with all the issue you post you have with all the solutions people present, you also keep saying how easy making a VTT would be, how easy it would be to make a mac version, and so on.
So here is my confusion, and why I question your statements, presented as facts based on experience.
On one hand, you state doing all this coding and making of software is easy to anyone who really knows what they are doing.
On the other hand, you keep presenting how you can't get things to work right, while everyone else can.
On a third hand, you think WoTC are liars, they deceived us and are incompetent.
And on the fourth hand, WoTC is the only that can make the VTT that you need to actually play the game, all other ones won't do.
The first hand contradicts the second hand, and the third hand contradicts the fourth hand.
So, I can't quite understand your views and opinions.
And for the record, I wish they did have a Mac version of the DDI tools.
Well, why is it so hard to accept that WoTC knows that it's not profitable, at this time and probably for some time, to make Mac Versions of their DDi software?
Because they never said they did studies or anything else that said it wasn't profitable. They just said they weren't going to do it right now.
Uh, given that I have one running in my screenshot, yes? It takes me about 30 seconds from starting the VM to when I can get the CB update screen to pop up; I just timed it. The speed difference is nonexistent, because VMs (along with your normal OS) are bound by I/O speed (i.e. the slowness of your hard drive), not by CPU. Hell, I've been running Windows guests on VMs for years now, and even back when I was on economy hardware several years ago the idea of taking 10 minutes to start up is completely ridiculous.
So your running on a Mac and running an emulator to run the CB and there is no slowdown and it only takes 30 seconds to load it up? I find that extremely hard to believe. You must be running the most recent hardware configuration or something because VMs emulate the CPU so that you can use programs outside the VM. Thus the 3/4 slowdown. Not to mention the time it takes to actually install windows to a VM and if you don't put it in suspend mode (which doesn't work on all machines and VMs) it takes just as long to "boot" windows up in the VM as it does normally.
I'm glad that the VM works perfectly for you, but for others that don't have the fastest processors and hardware it doesn't work that fast. I bet your even going to tell me that you don't want a port because you are satisfied with how it works on a VM. The CB is slow even when it runs natively in windows. I can't imagine running it in a VM that slows it down by 3/4 speed.
Even if it runs that fast on your Mac, I was relating my experience with a Windows machine running Linux in a VM. I also seem to have at least one other person that agrees with me.
VMs emulate the CPU so that you can use programs outside the VM.
This only approaches true if your host CPU architecture differs from your guest CPU architecture (e.g. you're using a Mac using a PowerPC CPU), and even then is largely wrong - nobody uses solely binary translation for virtualization anymore, and dynamic recompilation is about converting pockets of foreign code to a natively executable form. In any event, I regret to inform you that Apple is about to stop supporting you :P If you're on an x86 or x86-64 CPU architecture, then no, most code is run natively.
Not to mention the time it takes to actually install windows to a VM and if you don't put it in suspend mode (which doesn't work on all machines and VMs) it takes just as long to "boot" windows up in the VM as it does normally.
Uh, I didn't boot Windows from suspend mode for that 30s figure. Time to install? I don't know about you, but I don't reinstall Windows every time I run the CB. I mean, if we're complaining about time to install, all computers suck because of how much time I have to spend buying one
I'm glad that the VM works perfectly for you, but for others that don't have the fastest processors and hardware it doesn't work that fast.
As I said before, I've been running VMs on crappy hardware for a long time now (including, actually, virtualizing Linux on a WinXP host for experimentation), and 10 minutes to boot an OS in a VM would require one of three things: deliberate gimping of the environment (giving it 32 MB of RAM in which to run or something like that), inability to measure time, or outright fabrication of a number.
I bet your even going to tell me that you don't want a port because you are satisfied with how it works on a VM.
It's a low priority. If they ever get the CB working perfectly, and release all of the Adventure Tools, and get all of those working perfectly too, then a CB port would be nice.
This only approaches true if your host CPU architecture differs from your guest CPU architecture (e.g. you're using a Mac using a PowerPC CPU), and even then is largely wrong - nobody uses solely binary translation for virtualization anymore, and dynamic recompilation is about converting pockets of foreign code to a natively executable form. In any event, I regret to inform you that Apple is about to stop supporting you :P If you're on an x86 or x86-64 CPU architecture, then no, most code is run natively.
Uh, I didn't boot Windows from suspend mode for that 30s figure. Time to install? I don't know about you, but I don't reinstall Windows every time I run the CB. I mean, if we're complaining about time to install, all computers suck because of how much time I have to spend buying one
As I said before, I've been running VMs on crappy hardware for a long time now (including, actually, virtualizing Linux on a WinXP host for experimentation), and 10 minutes to boot an OS in a VM would require one of three things: deliberate gimping of the environment (giving it 32 MB of RAM in which to run or something like that), inability to measure time, or outright fabrication of a number.
It's a low priority. If they ever get the CB working perfectly, and release all of the Adventure Tools, and get all of those working perfectly too, then a CB port would be nice.
As I said you may have a nice computer that can run the CB through a VM with little or no loss in power. Here is a way to tell. Open up a program that can monitor your CPU usage and then open up the VM and load the CB. If it doesn't show a full load on CPU and memmory, then your computer is fast enough to dynamically recompile windows native code to Mac and it then doesn't represent the experience of people with lesser hardware's.
There have been at least one person that agrees with me, and one that doesn't. Are there any more Apple users that can time how long it takes to load up your VM and run the CB? that way we can get at least a representative segment of the interested population?
Because they never said they did studies or anything else that said it wasn't profitable. They just said they weren't going to do it right now.
OMG this isn't true, we have pasted the quote multiple times that said this...
Now, I understand that Statistics can be misleading (47% of them, in fact) but it seems to me that if 91% of the people with enough free cash to buy a $1000+ Laptop in this economy are buying Apples, then perhaps it might be a market segment worth taking a closer look at. Especially because of the supposition that those people with enough free cash to buy a new laptop are probably blessed with enough free income that they wouldn't mind paying $50 a quarter for software resources for their favorite hobby.
There are also persistent rumors that Apple will be releasing an Verizon-subsidized OSX tablet which I think would be fantastic as a gaming-table aid.
Getting back to the Virtual Machine issue, I have also been using VMs for years, using it first to get my feet wet in Linux, then using it to enable my wife to use her MS apps in Ubuntu, and now for her to use Windows Apps on our Macs. Honestly, I don't see the point of this line of enquiry. The fact is, we can see that there is a reasonable number of vocal proponents for an OSX usable version. Add to that that fact that the demographic that WotC is after coincides with the one that Apple hits, and Apple's stelar growth numbers over the Vista years, both in terms of profits and units shipped, it just strikes me as worth investigating.
isn't hardware a moot point for macs? thats their specialty isn't it?
Not sure if I get your point?
As I said before, I've been running VMs on crappy hardware for a long time now (including, actually, virtualizing Linux on a WinXP host for experimentation), and 10 minutes to boot an OS in a VM would require one of three things: deliberate gimping of the environment (giving it 32 MB of RAM in which to run or something like that), inability to measure time, or outright fabrication of a number.
It's entirely possible for a Linux boot to take upwards of 10 minutes. However, that's only if something is going seriously wrong. If you have an incorrect installation or hardware conflicts, you have to wait for those errors to either fix themselves or timeout. In one version of Ubuntu, the timeout was something like 360 seconds. Having to wait 6 minutes for your computer to boot can suck.
Not sure if I get your point?
lokiare was saying Virtualization takes hefty resources that only good computers have. One of Apple's marketing points is that Macs are powerful! These two statements contradict each other.
I'm kind of interested in whether my little 1.8GHz, 2GB RAM laptop can handle a virtual XP with the Character Builder now...
Not sure if I get your point?
mac hardware is amazing, really... the best "good" reason for going mac. To say you dislike vm's because your hardware can't handle it is a bit... ironic
I highly doubt any mac made since the jump to Intel, would do anything but fly circles around the vm software.
Disclaimer: I'm not saying this is better than native, I'm simply saying it IS a free option.
If it doesn't show a full load on CPU and memmory, then your computer is fast enough to dynamically recompile windows native code to Mac and it then doesn't represent the experience of people with lesser hardware's.
So in conclusion, you have no idea what you're talking about. Ok.
It's entirely possible for a Linux boot to take upwards of 10 minutes. However, that's only if something is going seriously wrong. If you have an incorrect installation or hardware conflicts, you have to wait for those errors to either fix themselves or timeout. In one version of Ubuntu, the timeout was something like 360 seconds. Having to wait 6 minutes for your computer to boot can suck.
Oh yeah. And pre-ext3 fsck :/
Because they never said they did studies or anything else that said it wasn't profitable. They just said they weren't going to do it right now.
Again, you are wrong, they have. And have posted and said so. Don't forget, you are the one who admits you don't have time to read and miss most of the information put out on the site and the forums.
All they can do is make the information available, they can't make you read or understand it.
Working on a MacBook now, I simply CAN NOT install the character builder. I'm using an install of XP Pro and the damn thing keeps trying to install from a network drive that doesn't exist.
Since nobody is responding to my tech support queries, I figured to just type out sheets in Excel or write them out by hand just like in the good ole days.
I'm not entirely sure why a product that should be able to run without lag on a 20 year old computer (the CB is after all simply a database, and not even a very large one). There's really no reason to have written it on something platform-specific.
As for the "Great stats debate" - Windows and DOS is used in cash registers and other machines, on Macs and other VMs now (which would trick OS counters as some guy described), and so on. When you get a cobbled-together computer lab its often the low-end windoze boxes of yesterday. A lot of business forces people to use Windoze boxes too - and you certainly can't install on those.
I can't say I'd buy insider guarunteed even if the software worked, but it would be a much bigger draw.
Again, you are wrong, they have. And have posted and said so. Don't forget, you are the one who admits you don't have time to read and miss most of the information put out on the site and the forums.
All they can do is make the information available, they can't make you read or understand it.
I recall them saying they wanted to bring it to the Mac... they just did not go that way. They never said they did studies on the % of mac users or anything like that. I have read every post here... please quote the one you are referring to.
Glad to have yet another voice chiming in!
To the guy many pages ago who said "No mac emulator for windoze". Nope - there are several. I emulated OS7 on my windoze box before I got an OS9 imac to run my old mac games.
Working on a MacBook now, I simply CAN NOT install the character builder. I'm using an install of XP Pro and the damn thing keeps trying to install from a network drive that doesn't exist.
Since nobody is responding to my tech support queries, I figured to just type out sheets in Excel or write them out by hand just like in the good ole days.
I'm not entirely sure why a product that should be able to run without lag on a 20 year old computer (the CB is after all simply a database, and not even a very large one). There's really no reason to have written it on something platform-specific.
As for the "Great stats debate" - Windows and DOS is used in cash registers and other machines, on Macs and other VMs now (which would trick OS counters as some guy described), and so on. When you get a cobbled-together computer lab its often the low-end windoze boxes of yesterday. A lot of business forces people to use Windoze boxes too - and you certainly can't install on those.
I can't say I'd buy insider guarunteed even if the software worked, but it would be a much bigger draw.
I'm using an install of XP Pro and the damn thing keeps trying to install from a network drive that doesn't exist.
If you mean WinXP, you're doing something horribly wrong. If you mean CB, post a thread with more detail in the Technical Support forum?
I recall them saying they wanted to bring it to the Mac... they just did not go that way. They never said they did studies on the % of mac users or anything like that. I have read every post here... please quote the one you are referring to.
Given the short schedule that we had it wouldn't have been reasonable to make a multi-platform version. Once we were done with the initial build I did cost out what it would take to make a mac version, as I think it is short sighted not to make one. The problem being that Wizards just doesn't have enough mac customers yet. They would need something like 10 times as many in order for it to break even, and that's not counting the fact that the majority of mac users can run windows apps in some sort of vm setup.
Again, you are wrong, they have. And have posted and said so. Don't forget, you are the one who admits you don't have time to read and miss most of the information put out on the site and the forums.
All they can do is make the information available, they can't make you read or understand it.
Ok, since you have time to find every single thread I post in and argue with anything I say, you find where it says that and post a link because I seriously haven't heard or seen anything of the nature.
Now (2) above is not saying "mac is better than windows' or anything like that... it is just saying for me, I don't like using it. For the last few decades I have had to use multiple platforms both at work and at home, and for me, Windows is a frustrating experience that I don't enjoy... my personal preference.
Hence, why I started this thread in the first place. I want the Character builder on my Mac. I made this thread for others that also want it to have a chance to make a post and talk about it, so we can hopefully get some TLC from Wizards at some point in the future.
For those who are interested, I think Campaign Cartographer is a great set of software for D&D, and is PC only. I emailed them, and they said they are CAD based and could not make a Mac version easily. This makes sense - it's CAD based, not based on a database, really does not make sense for them. So I went ahead and not only spent several hundred dollars on their software, but also extra hardware (memory) and software (Virtual PC at the time) so I could run it. I booted it once on my machine, and that was it. I have since installed Boot Camp and vmFusion on my Xeon Mac Pro and a few of my laptops... I can't get myself to spend time on the windows side of my machine. So the software goes unused.
Why am I telling you this? Because I'm trying to convey that to me, and many Mac users, we are willing to spend the money (some of us extra money) to be able to get software we like on our OS of choice. This is what we want. Thanks for letting us have our voice.
So in conclusion, you have no idea what you're talking about. Ok.
Oh yeah. And pre-ext3 fsck :/
I'm sorry that you don't understand how computers work, but you don't have to attack everyone that says something you don't understand. If something is said that you feel is untrue refute it with facts not asinine comments.
For the people touting the great merits of using an emulator... I don't know if you have used one... I have installed emulators on a few of my machines, and I find myself not using the software simply because of two main reasons (1) it's a pain to use
I have been, and currently am, using a virtual machine, and I don't know what this is supposed to mean.
(2) I don't like using Windows, it frustrates me.
I'm very confused. If all you want is to run the CB, the extent to which you have to interact with Windows is clicking an icon to start the CB, and shutting down the VM. I can't see how 3 seconds of intermediate interaction with an OS can be so frustrating.
I'm sorry that you don't understand how computers work, but you don't have to attack everyone that says something you don't understand.
Lol. Well, I'll let my previous comments in this thread stand; I think they're all I need to say in this regard.
As for Macs having better hardware that is a red herring. It is not that they have better hardware or worse hardware, it is that the hardware is standardized across the board. So a given model of Mac will have the same basic hardware setup as any other Mac of the same model which makes it much easier to program for on both the OS side and the application side. On the flip side you can buy PCs that have better hardware than Macs, but you may not see the speed increase because the OS and application programmers are programing for the most compatibility. PCs have hundreds of different CPUs and motherboard combination's that require specific drivers for each. Thus as a general rule a PC will be slightly slower than a Mac with the equivalent hardware.
I just love a good thread that is completely off topic. Anyway I would pay for a mac Character Builder or other D&D tool for mac.
Thanks for the post Newrad!
I have been, and currently am, using a virtual machine, and I don't know what this is supposed to mean.
I'm very confused. If all you want is to run the CB, the extent to which you have to interact with Windows is clicking an icon to start the CB, and shutting down the VM. I can't see how 3 seconds of intermediate interaction with an OS can be so frustrating.
Lol. Well, I'll let my previous comments in this thread stand; I think they're all I need to say in this regard.
Sure thing, but if you don't provide facts to fight the opinions and facts that others present and just have ignorant comments about how they are wrong, it just looks like your arguing for the sake of arguing, and not actually wanting to discuss anything at all. Seriously post a few facts. I'm completely willing to admit I'm wrong if you can actually prove it. I, however, will not admit to being wrong when someone just says "So in conclusion, you have no idea what you're talking about. Ok." with nothing to back up what they are saying.
I have been, and currently am, using a virtual machine, and I don't know what this is supposed to mean.
I'm very confused. If all you want is to run the CB, the extent to which you have to interact with Windows is clicking an icon to start the CB, and shutting down the VM. I can't see how 3 seconds of intermediate interaction with an OS can be so frustrating.
.
So I upped the memory in my desktop to 8 GB, few hundred dollars for that, because running a Windows OS and a Mac OS at the same time was bogging down with only 3GB.
Now I have to open widows, which takes much longer than 3 seconds, once it opens, I'm dealing with the pop-ups windows keeps telling me to update, deal with unused icons, etc. Later, I want to print out my character as a PDF... oh that's right, I can't do that in the way I'm used to, so I install Cute PFD writer. Now I want to email the files to myself... oh, I don't have a mail program setup on the windows side, so I have to grab it back and forth.
These are just a few of the things that just make me not want to load into the Windows side at all. I hope this helps add clarity to what I am saying.... I am more than willing to put my money where my mouth is... I have paid for all of my software and hardware just to try out and see if I can get this to work... not just the 'easiest' way, but the 'best way'. With the best hardware and software I can to get the character builder to work on my Mac, it's still frustrating and something I personally don't like.
I still want this software made to run natively on my Mac.
So I upped the memory in my desktop to 8 GB, few hundred dollars for that, because running a Windows OS and a Mac OS at the same time was bogging down with only 3GB.
This is really kind of excessive... I usually have both Ubuntu and WinXP running on my laptop with 3 GB RAM, and I don't have any kind of bogging down issues :/
Now I have to open widows, which takes much longer than 3 seconds
Yeah, but you don't actually have to deal with it. I mean, if the progress bars burn your eyes, minimize the VM or something.
once it opens, I'm dealing with the pop-ups windows keeps telling me to update, deal with unused icons, etc.
You only have to turn them off once, though, and "annoying notifications on startup" hardly seem like a compelling argument for "the first priority of WotC programmers should be to port a program I can already run."
Later, I want to print out my character as a PDF... oh that's right, I can't do that in the way I'm used to, so I install Cute PFD writer.
Again, you only have to install it once. This is particularly confusing because you speak as if you've already done so, and now that everything's set up you can't bear to run CB in a VM.
Now I want to email the files to myself... oh, I don't have a mail program setup on the windows side, so I have to grab it back and forth.
If you're actually interested in getting the best user experience you can, the best way to deal with this is to make your Mac home folder shared with the VM as a network drive (I know this is easy in at least VMware and VirtualBox), and then work directly with that. It's extremely transparent, and means you can work with files purely on the Mac side of things.
I want to be clear on this: I am not fundamentally opposed to the idea of a Mac port. All I'm saying is that I think Wizards should devote their limited resources to new stuff everyone can use before they spend time and money on making life slightly easier for a small portion of their userbase.
And while I also appreciate resources are limited, I have worked in software development environments before, and I don't think they are approaching any of their software applications or web-development in the most intelligent way. This is not to say the character builder is not a great app, and it is not to say things like the compendium are not great concepts as well, but the shortcomings I see are the kind I see in many database environments - crippling choices on the onset limit effectiveness in the long run. One of these limitations is building the app in a way that wraps it in this windows-only app. Now in truth, it running in this app is more a symptom than it is part of the original issue... ugg... OK... now I've done it. The point of this thread is to give people a chance to say "me too, I want this app for my Mac". The point I was trying to make here is developing the software in this fashion should just be a matter of good planning and foresight, not hundreds of development hours.
This is really kind of excessive... I usually have both Ubuntu and WinXP running on my laptop with 3 GB RAM, and I don't have any kind of bogging down issues :/
Yeah, but you don't actually have to deal with it. I mean, if the progress bars burn your eyes, minimize the VM or something.
You only have to turn them off once, though, and "annoying notifications on startup" hardly seem like a compelling argument for "the first priority of WotC programmers should be to port a program I can already run."
Again, you only have to install it once. This is particularly confusing because you speak as if you've already done so, and now that everything's set up you can't bear to run CB in a VM.
If you're actually interested in getting the best user experience you can, the best way to deal with this is to make your Mac home folder shared with the VM as a network drive (I know this is easy in at least VMware and VirtualBox), and then work directly with that. It's extremely transparent, and means you can work with files purely on the Mac side of things.
I want to be clear on this: I am not fundamentally opposed to the idea of a Mac port. All I'm saying is that I think Wizards should devote their limited resources to new stuff everyone can use before they spend time and money on making life slightly easier for a small portion of their userbase.
The point of this thread is to give people a chance to say "me too, I want this app for my Mac". The point I was trying to make here is developing the software in this fashion should just be a matter of good planning and foresight, not hundreds of development hours.
You know, that's fine. No one is saying you shouldn't speak up.
BUT, when they say, sorry at this time, our numbers show that we just don't have enough people on Macs coming to the site, emailing us with Mac software, or however else they get their information, why do people need to keep saying, "Well I think you are wrong about your information, and I want a Mac version"?
That's the part that I don't understand. You asked, they answered, because the subject of this thread isn't new, and still that's not good enough.
I'm all for a mac version, but I also understand why there isn't one at this time, and why there probably won't be one for a long time.
And while you may think by keeping the subject alive might change things, it's not going to. Not until making a Mac version is going to mean making money, and right now, that isn't the case. WoTC is a company, not a public service so don't expect them to invest in something that isn't going to make profit for them.
No, I'm not digging through threads and former employees blogs and such to find links. They have all been posted and reposted for a second, third and more times to count, really. And I'm a little tired of the whole, "Unless you can provide a link, you are lying (Though I won't actually say that) and I'm right and you are wrong (unless you can prove me wrong, and even then I'll not actually say I'm wrong) feeling that goes behind demanding links or it didn't happen."
It happened.
You know, that's fine. No one is saying you shouldn't speak up.
BUT, when they say, sorry at this time, our numbers show that we just don't have enough people on Macs coming to the site, emailing us with Mac software, or however else they get their information, why do people need to keep saying, "Well I think you are wrong about your information, and I want a Mac version"?
That's the part that I don't understand. You asked, they answered, because the subject of this thread isn't new, and still that's not good enough.
I'm all for a mac version, but I also understand why there isn't one at this time, and why there probably won't be one for a long time.
And while you may think by keeping the subject alive might change things, it's not going to. Not until making a Mac version is going to mean making money, and right now, that isn't the case. WoTC is a company, not a public service so don't expect them to invest in something that isn't going to make profit for them.
No, I'm not digging through threads and former employees blogs and such to find links. They have all been posted and reposted for a second, third and more times to count, really. And I'm a little tired of the whole, "Unless you can provide a link, you are lying (Though I won't actually say that) and I'm right and you are wrong (unless you can prove me wrong, and even then I'll not actually say I'm wrong) feeling that goes behind demanding links or it didn't happen."
It happened.
Dude, they also said "this thread is exactly what we need to see there is a voice" - and guesses at what volume of people are that would buy a Mac version is just that... guesses. No one can know how many people that log in with windows boxes right now because there is no Mac option may prefer to login with a Mac, and Mac people that don't come to the site at all because there is no Mac option also will not be visible until either (a) the software is made for the mac or (b) we have threads like this one.
No, what they said was "Threads like this encourage us to keep it on the top of our list, and we do notice them."
Meaning, they like being reminded of things they themselves want to do, but can't at this point. They liked to be reminded there is a segment of their audience they still need to address.
So again, speaking up is a good thing.
But again having that voice doesn't mean they are going to change their mind, and take a lose of profit to make that voice happy. They will take action on making the mac version they want to, when they can prove to Hasbro it will make money.
BTW, the statement by the former WoTC that worked on DDI is in this very thread:
Once we were done with the initial build I did cost out what it would take to make a mac version, as I think it is short sighted not to make one. The problem being that Wizards just doesn't have enough mac customers yet. They would need something like 10 times as many in order for it to break even, and that's not counting the fact that the majority of mac users can run windows apps in some sort of vm setup
This isn't him speaking in general terms, this is the person that actually put together the data to see about making a Mac version. Because they wanted to, not because they don't like Macs.
When putting together the cost to do something, you need to know how much and when you will make a profit. And in this case, you would need some sort of information on Mac users in terms of your products. I think that's a pretty safe assumption, without knowing how they got that information.
I have to say, it gets old hearing people denounce other people, when the information is right in this very thread. Which is also why I didn't want to provide a link. It was in this very thread. Reading for the win.
On another note, I would be willing to pay significantly more money if they introduced a mac D&D insider account that offered the same features (like character builder) but for the mac.
take a look at this thraed alone, there are less then 100 people saying they need this... Now assuming that there are atleast 100 people who would subscribe to DDI if it had mac support but don't now, then it would still be a loseing battle for them to make it mac.
You need the profit to be more within the same tax year then the cost...
Are you saying I have denounced you? I specifically have tried to not do so on this or any topic I post on any forum.
No, what they said was "Threads like this encourage us to keep it on the top of our list, and we do notice them."
Meaning, they like being reminded of things they themselves want to do, but can't at this point. They liked to be reminded there is a segment of their audience they still need to address.
So again, speaking up is a good thing.
But again having that voice doesn't mean they are going to change their mind, and take a lose of profit to make that voice happy. They will take action on making the mac version they want to, when they can prove to Hasbro it will make money.
BTW, the statement by the former WoTC that worked on DDI is in this very thread:
This isn't him speaking in general terms, this is the person that actually put together the data to see about making a Mac version. Because they wanted to, not because they don't like Macs.
When putting together the cost to do something, you need to know how much and when you will make a profit. And in this case, you would need some sort of information on Mac users in terms of your products. I think that's a pretty safe assumption, without knowing how they got that information.
I have to say, it gets old hearing people denounce other people, when the information is right in this very thread. Which is also why I didn't want to provide a link. It was in this very thread. Reading for the win.
I read the same quite, and I do not get 'this guy ran the numbers', I get 'this guy is making the best guess he can' - and I think his assumption is wrong. But the we are both making assumptions here, and we know what that does.
What do you think he means by he did the cost on what it would cost to make a Mac version and that WoTC didn't have enough Mac customers where they would even recoup the cost?
That's not making a guess, that's using facts.
It's simple.
1. How much will it cost to make a Mac version?
2. It will cost $X.oo
3. How many Mac customers do we have?
4. We have Y customers.
5. But at $Z.oo/per month for a subscription, $Z.oo times Y doesn't even equal $X.oo
This is what is so frustrating about these conversations. Someone presents facts, and because it goes against what you want, the response, Oh I don't take those facts as facts, I take it to mean something else.
My assumption that they have some numbers to back up why they didn't make a mac version is based on his words. I add to that my experience where a production/cost plan needs to include an expected profit report. So, I also assume that if he needs to figure out how much profit WoTC (and Hasbro) will make, he's got to have some information on the amount Mac usage and WoTC products.
Your assumption is that he guessed. Because if you can make it sound like he guessed, you can then say that guess was wrong, and not really have to provide any facts on why that guess was wrong.
FYI: Once we were done with the initial build I did cost out what it would take to make a mac version That's where he says he ran the numbers.
What do you think he means by he did the cost on what it would cost to make a Mac version and that WoTC didn't have enough Mac customers where they would even recoup the cost?
That's not making a guess, that's using facts.
It's simple.
1. How much will it cost to make a Mac version?
2. It will cost $X.oo
3. How many Mac customers do we have?
4. We have Y customers.
5. But at $Z.oo/per month for a subscription, $Z.oo times Y doesn't even equal $X.oo
This is what is so frustrating about these conversations. Someone presents facts, and because it goes against what you want, the response, Oh I don't take those facts as facts, I take it to mean something else.
My assumption that they have some numbers to back up why they didn't make a mac version is based on his words. I add to that my experience where a production/cost plan needs to include an expected profit report. So, I also assume that if he needs to figure out how much profit WoTC (and Hasbro) will make, he's got to have some information on the amount Mac usage and WoTC products.
Your assumption is that he guessed. Because if you can make it sound like he guessed, you can then say that guess was wrong, and not really have to provide any facts on why that guess was wrong.
FYI: Once we were done with the initial build I did cost out what it would take to make a mac version That's where he says he ran the numbers.
yeah, you cost it out based on guesses. that is what I'm saying.
Well, I'm sorry to say, you do not cost it out on guesses. You cost it out based on factual information.
That's just common business practice.
If you mean WinXP, you're doing something horribly wrong. If you mean CB, post a thread with more detail in the Technical Support forum?
I'm not doing anything horribly wrong. I install .NET without flaw. Then I download the Trial and try to install it. It tries to install off a non-existant network drive.
I've posted in the technical forum THREE TIMES, and only once did I get half-hearted help which didn't go anywhere.
I don't think you guys realize how impposibl eyou are being...
take a look at this thraed alone, there are less then 100 people saying they need this... Now assuming that there are atleast 100 people who would subscribe to DDI if it had mac support but don't now, then it would still be a loseing battle for them to make it mac.
You need the profit to be more within the same tax year then the cost...
I think the point of this thread is less "Make a mac version" but "why isnt the CB coded in something cross-platform, so people who aren't on windows (NOT "people on mac") can use it"? Apparently people still use Amiga, Be/OS and other systems in addition to Linux distros et al.
I'm not doing anything horribly wrong. I install .NET without flaw. Then I download the Trial and try to install it. It tries to install off a non-existant network drive.
What is the error? Usually when something like this happens it means the downloaded installer is corrupted.
Well, I'm sorry to say, you do not cost it out on guesses. You cost it out based on factual information.
That's just common business practice.
You cost on facts when you have them... you cost on guesses when you don't... like here.
You cost on facts when you have them... you cost on guesses when you don't... like here.
So you actually know how many Mac customers they have? You actually have proof that they don't know? Please share this information and source with all of us.
If you think about it, there is a big flaw in your logic they guessed at the number of Mac users.
If he wanted to make a Mac version from the get go, and the only thing stopping him is that the number of Mac customers isn't enough to cover the cost, and you are saying he is guessing at the number of Mac users, why would he guess a number that STOPS him from doing something he wants to do, and sees as needed?
If it's a guess, why not guess there are enough mac customers to justify making a Mac Version?
After all, if it's a guess like you suggest, then he could have guessed in favor of making a Mac version.
So why would he guess in a way that makes it so they can't make a Mac version, even though he says he thinks it's short sighted to not to?
So you actually know how many Mac customers they have? You actually have proof that they don't know? Please share this information and source with all of us.
This is my point, you can't know for sure, and hence why % numbers of Macs vs PC, etc are all so difficult to generate... people would like you to think it's easy to come up with, but it's all guess work - if they say they have numbers, I have yet to see where it is not just a false conjecture on something someone else has said.
My observations are Mac users are more prolific than people think, and given the choice, more people use Mac than business people realize. The best correlation I can give it working with a software group that makes gaming software for D&D... they thought there was no demand for Mac users, even though many of them have macs in their own home. I helped them get in touch with a guy who found making the Mac port so easy, he did not even charge for the 30 minutes of work it took to make it happen... and the response was great. For me the proof is with this software... by the way, if you want to check them out, the software is d20Pro is the best tabletop software I have come across... and I have tried several. If the d20Pro guys were surprised I bet Wizards would be pleasantly surprised too.
I appreciate that you are trying to make my windows experience easier, but these are all things I have tried and don't work for me. I spend most of my working day on computers, and much of my free time as well. I don't know how to make it any clearer... I have tried running Windows in this way for this program and for others, and I find the experience frustrating.
And while I also appreciate resources are limited, I have worked in software development environments before, and I don't think they are approaching any of their software applications or web-development in the most intelligent way. This is not to say the character builder is not a great app, and it is not to say things like the compendium are not great concepts as well, but the shortcomings I see are the kind I see in many database environments - crippling choices on the onset limit effectiveness in the long run. One of these limitations is building the app in a way that wraps it in this windows-only app. Now in truth, it running in this app is more a symptom than it is part of the original issue... ugg... OK... now I've done it. The point of this thread is to give people a chance to say "me too, I want this app for my Mac". The point I was trying to make here is developing the software in this fashion should just be a matter of good planning and foresight, not hundreds of development hours.
That's what I've been trying to say, but I keep getting hate from the WotC defenders.
You know, that's fine. No one is saying you shouldn't speak up.
BUT, when they say, sorry at this time, our numbers show that we just don't have enough people on Macs coming to the site, emailing us with Mac software, or however else they get their information, why do people need to keep saying, "Well I think you are wrong about your information, and I want a Mac version"?
That's the part that I don't understand. You asked, they answered, because the subject of this thread isn't new, and still that's not good enough.
I'm all for a mac version, but I also understand why there isn't one at this time, and why there probably won't be one for a long time.
And while you may think by keeping the subject alive might change things, it's not going to. Not until making a Mac version is going to mean making money, and right now, that isn't the case. WoTC is a company, not a public service so don't expect them to invest in something that isn't going to make profit for them.
No, I'm not digging through threads and former employees blogs and such to find links. They have all been posted and reposted for a second, third and more times to count, really. And I'm a little tired of the whole, "Unless you can provide a link, you are lying (Though I won't actually say that) and I'm right and you are wrong (unless you can prove me wrong, and even then I'll not actually say I'm wrong) feeling that goes behind demanding links or it didn't happen."
It happened.
If it happened it should be relatively easy for you to provide a link.
The only quote I remember was that they decided not to do it because of their schedule. As I remember it had nothing to do with money or how many users were on Macs.
No, what they said was "Threads like this encourage us to keep it on the top of our list, and we do notice them."
Meaning, they like being reminded of things they themselves want to do, but can't at this point. They liked to be reminded there is a segment of their audience they still need to address.
So again, speaking up is a good thing.
But again having that voice doesn't mean they are going to change their mind, and take a lose of profit to make that voice happy. They will take action on making the mac version they want to, when they can prove to Hasbro it will make money.
BTW, the statement by the former WoTC that worked on DDI is in this very thread:
This isn't him speaking in general terms, this is the person that actually put together the data to see about making a Mac version. Because they wanted to, not because they don't like Macs.
When putting together the cost to do something, you need to know how much and when you will make a profit. And in this case, you would need some sort of information on Mac users in terms of your products. I think that's a pretty safe assumption, without knowing how they got that information.
I have to say, it gets old hearing people denounce other people, when the information is right in this very thread. Which is also why I didn't want to provide a link. It was in this very thread. Reading for the win.
Actually if you read the quote he says there are not enough current Mac customers to justify it. He says nothing about potential Mac customers, or Mac users that won't buy into DDI until they get a port.
What do you think he means by he did the cost on what it would cost to make a Mac version and that WoTC didn't have enough Mac customers where they would even recoup the cost?
That's not making a guess, that's using facts.
It's simple.
1. How much will it cost to make a Mac version?
2. It will cost $X.oo
3. How many Mac customers do we have?
4. We have Y customers.
5. But at $Z.oo/per month for a subscription, $Z.oo times Y doesn't even equal $X.oo
This is what is so frustrating about these conversations. Someone presents facts, and because it goes against what you want, the response, Oh I don't take those facts as facts, I take it to mean something else.
My assumption that they have some numbers to back up why they didn't make a mac version is based on his words. I add to that my experience where a production/cost plan needs to include an expected profit report. So, I also assume that if he needs to figure out how much profit WoTC (and Hasbro) will make, he's got to have some information on the amount Mac usage and WoTC products.
Your assumption is that he guessed. Because if you can make it sound like he guessed, you can then say that guess was wrong, and not really have to provide any facts on why that guess was wrong.
FYI: Once we were done with the initial build I did cost out what it would take to make a mac version That's where he says he ran the numbers.
What I got from that quote is that he calculated how much it would cost to port the CB to Mac as in man hours and money. Then he looked at the member list of DDI subscribers and did some quick division to see if the CURRENT subscribers that used Mac would be enough to pay for it. He did not say he looked at the number of Mac website users, he also didn't look at the number of Mac forum users. He also didn't take into account all of the Mac users that run the CB in a VM on their Mac (which to the CB and website would look like windows running it). So he only got about a 1/5 accurate picture.
They need to go ahead and do another poll.
This is my point, you can't know for sure, and hence why % numbers of Macs vs PC, etc are all so difficult to generate... people would like you to think it's easy to come up with, but it's all guess work - if they say they have numbers, I have yet to see where it is not just a false conjecture on something someone else has said.
My observations are Mac users are more prolific than people think, and given the choice, more people use Mac than business people realize. The best correlation I can give it working with a software group that makes gaming software for D&D... they thought there was no demand for Mac users, even though many of them have macs in their own home. I helped them get in touch with a guy who found making the Mac port so easy, he did not even charge for the 30 minutes of work it took to make it happen... and the response was great. For me the proof is with this software... by the way, if you want to check them out, the software is d20Pro is the best tabletop software I have come across... and I have tried several. If the d20Pro guys were surprised I bet Wizards would be pleasantly surprised too.
So really, it comes down to, you're a Mac person, and you think there are more Mac people. You don't actually have any numbers or research, or have tried to find any.
So you assume because you don't have this information, WoTC doesn't either.
However, there is a difference here. In your words d20pro assumed they had no Mac users interested in their product. WoTC doesn't assume that.
So again, I ask, if WoTC wanted to make a Mac version, and the only thing stopping them was profit, and showing what profit they would make, is based on having enough Mac users to cover the cost, why would they guess at the number of mac users that wouldn't allow them to do what they want to do?
If they don't have numbers and have to guess, why would they guess that way? Why not guess there is enough to support them being able to make a Mac version over not making it?
So you actually know how many Mac customers they have? You actually have proof that they don't know? Please share this information and source with all of us.
If you think about it, there is a big flaw in your logic they guessed at the number of Mac users.
If he wanted to make a Mac version from the get go, and the only thing stopping him is that the number of Mac customers isn't enough to cover the cost, and you are saying he is guessing at the number of Mac users, why would he guess a number that STOPS him from doing something he wants to do, and sees as needed?
If it's a guess, why not guess there are enough mac customers to justify making a Mac Version?
After all, if it's a guess like you suggest, then he could have guessed in favor of making a Mac version.
So why would he guess in a way that makes it so they can't make a Mac version, even though he says he thinks it's short sighted to not to?
Since the CB HAS TO BE RUN in a VM, they cannot know how many Mac customers they have that use the CB. They will all literally look like windows users. The only number they actually have to go on is those people that subscribe to DDI and access it using a Mac computer.
So really, it comes down to, you're a Mac person, and you think there are more Mac people. You don't actually have any numbers or research, or have tried to find any.
So you assume because you don't have this information, WoTC doesn't either.
However, there is a difference here. In your words d20pro assumed they had no Mac users interested in their product. WoTC doesn't assume that.
So again, I ask, if WoTC wanted to make a Mac version, and the only thing stopping them was profit, and showing what profit they would make, is based on having enough Mac users to cover the cost, why would they guess at the number of mac users that wouldn't allow them to do what they want to do?
If they don't have numbers and have to guess, why would they guess that way? Why not guess there is enough to support them being able to make a Mac version over not making it?
Your still assuming WotC somehow knows the number of Mac users that would buy DDI. So far no evidence has been put forth except for the quote that says there are not enough CURRENT MAC SUBSCRIBERS to DDI to justify it. That is once again just a tiny piece of the information that would be needed to see if there are enough Mac people to make it worth porting.
Since the CB HAS TO BE RUN in a VM, they cannot know how many Mac customers they have that use the CB. They will all literally look like windows users. The only number they actually have to go on is those people that subscribe to DDI and access it using a Mac computer.
However the big flaw in your logic, is that his numbers had to come before any of it was released. They couldn't have been running the CB on a VM when he was pulling his numbers together.
But they can certainly tell what type of computer or system you are using coming to the forums. Which isn't definitive, but it's some information, and certainly not there only source.
Since everything before the CB was released was web based, it was workable for both Mac and PC. So that is a second source of information.
Some people don't believe they had any info on the number of Mac users.
But you know, I bet if they did show their info source, it wouldn't make a difference.
However the big flaw in your logic, is that his numbers had to come before any of it was released. They couldn't have been running the CB on a VM when he was pulling his numbers together.
But they can certainly tell what type of computer or system you are using coming to the forums. Which isn't definitive, but it's some information, and certainly not there only source.
Since everything before the CB was released was web based, it was workable for both Mac and PC. So that is a second source of information.
Actually you are not understanding the original quote yet again. They were looking only at the SUBSCRIBED MAC USERS to DDI regardless of when the quote was made (I believe the quote came after the release of the CB, but I'm not 100% on this). So the only information they have is the number of people that subscribed using a MAC. This does not show in any way how many Mac users chose not to subscribe because they knew the CB was windows only. This also doesn't accurately show the people that use a VM to run the CB because they would have to log in to DDI using the emulated windows to update the CB which means they would show up as a windows user.
Actually you are not understanding the original quote yet again. They were looking only at the SUBSCRIBED MAC USERS to DDI regardless of when the quote was made (I believe the quote came after the release of the CB, but I'm not 100% on this). So the only information they have is the number of people that subscribed using a MAC. This does not show in any way how many Mac users chose not to subscribe because they knew the CB was windows only. This also doesn't accurately show the people that use a VM to run the CB because they would have to log in to DDI using the emulated windows to update the CB which means they would show up as a windows user.
ddi didn't exist when this "survey" was done.
I really love posting this AGAIN
I would have love to have done a mac version. I have a mac. I also have an iphone.
When I originally joined the project though I was given a 6 month time frame to full release, 3 months to beta, and by the way, that includes the time I could spend hiring a staff. Staff was, fortunately, hired in short order, and I was lucky to get some great people on the team. With the short schedule though we were making decisions between releasing it as a web app, or perhaps winforms. We mocked up a web app and it wasn't responsive enough, we mocked up a winforms prototype, and it was slow and lacked the ability to do all the things we wanted to do so we ported to WPF which set us back a week but was so worth it. We were able to do more things, have better control of the UI and development time was very fast.
Given the short schedule that we had it wouldn't have been reasonable to make a multi-platform version. Once we were done with the initial build I did cost out what it would take to make a mac version, as I think it is short sighted not to make one. The problem being that Wizards just doesn't have enough mac customers yet. They would need something like 10 times as many in order for it to break even, and that's not counting the fact that the majority of mac users can run windows apps in some sort of vm setup.
It's also entirely possible that by the time there are enough mac customers there will also be either native osx support for wpf, or some sort of rapid development tool for mac/iphone that could be trivially ported too. It's also possible that with the coming release of windows7 that XP will drop in price so much that it doesn't make sense not to have a copy running in a vm with your mac.
the thing about it.. is that any given time a webmaster can look at his incoming usage details and see who uses what. so there is no "survey" actively done the server logs it. you guys make it sound like this was a conscious thing (looking at the usage reports), but really they're probably analyzed often.
ddi didn't exist when this "survey" was done.
I really love posting this AGAIN
the thing about it.. is that any given time a webmaster can look at his incoming usage details and see who uses what. so there is no "survey" actively done the server logs it. you guys make it sound like this was a conscious thing (looking at the usage reports), but really they're probably analyzed often.
Funny, haven't I mentioned how information keeps getting posted and reposted, and yet it doesn't seem to sink in or be read or whatever.
It gets old.
Besides, even if they did release full information about their data, it wouldn't be accepted by the few that are determined to cast doubt on everything for their own reasons.
Maybe stop typing with your heart? You might find we're not that different in what we are trying to say.
So really, it comes down to, you're a Mac person, and you think there are more Mac people. You don't actually have any numbers or research, or have tried to find any.
So you assume because you don't have this information, WoTC doesn't either.
However, there is a difference here. In your words d20pro assumed they had no Mac users interested in their product. WoTC doesn't assume that.
So again, I ask, if WoTC wanted to make a Mac version, and the only thing stopping them was profit, and showing what profit they would make, is based on having enough Mac users to cover the cost, why would they guess at the number of mac users that wouldn't allow them to do what they want to do?
If they don't have numbers and have to guess, why would they guess that way? Why not guess there is enough to support them being able to make a Mac version over not making it?
Looking at web-traffic tells you something, yes... it tells you about the web-traffic. You can use that to help frame an assumption on Mac users who may buy your product, but it's not fact. But it is also an assumption that it is being looked it... or what was done with the raw numbers.
How about you step away from the keyboard for 24 hours... maybe even troll some other threads... this thread was meant to be for people to talk about if they want CB for the Mac, not intended to be hijacked to bash the people who are saying they want it. I'm not going onto every thread on this forum, and every other forum saying "everything should be Mac", for my part I'm trying to keep it civil and in one location where we can talk about it.
I know I'm ******* in the wind... I'll just get ready for you to flame me back again.
Funny, haven't I mentioned how information keeps getting posted and reposted, and yet it doesn't seem to sink in or be read or whatever.
It gets old.
Besides, even if they did release full information about their data, it wouldn't be accepted by the few that are determined to cast doubt on everything for their own reasons.
Actually you are not understanding the original quote yet again. They were looking only at the SUBSCRIBED MAC USERS to DDI regardless of when the quote was made (I believe the quote came after the release of the CB, but I'm not 100% on this). So the only information they have is the number of people that subscribed using a MAC. This does not show in any way how many Mac users chose not to subscribe because they knew the CB was windows only. This also doesn't accurately show the people that use a VM to run the CB because they would have to log in to DDI using the emulated windows to update the CB which means they would show up as a windows user.
good point
What this comes down to is you are a PC person who is bent on fighting an argument based on facts neither of us have. What is interesting is you are willing to accept where I have to speculate, but where you have to speculate you state is pure fact.
Maybe stop typing with your heart? You might find we're not that different in what we are trying to say.
Wrong, I'm both a PC and Mac person, I own both, and work on both. So, wrong again.
Typing with my heart? No, I'm typing based on facts.
Wrong, I'm both a PC and Mac person, I own both, and work on both. So, wrong again.
Typing with my heart? No, I'm typing based on facts.
My bad. Then we are equally wrong... as I have both PCs Macs and work on both... but if I have a choice, I use my Mac every time.
Can you say 'my bad' too?
It's ironic how blind you are to the assumptions that are made that support what you want to see. Assumptions are made all over here.
Looking at web-traffic tells you something, yes... it tells you about the web-traffic. You can use that to help frame an assumption on Mac users who may buy your product, but it's not fact. But it is also an assumption that it is being looked it... or what was done with the raw numbers.
How about you step away from the keyboard for 24 hours... maybe even troll some other threads... this thread was meant to be for people to talk about if they want CB for the Mac, not intended to be hijacked to bash the people who are saying they want it. I'm not going onto every thread on this forum, and every other forum saying "everything should be Mac", for my part I'm trying to keep it civil and in one location where we can talk about it.
I know I'm ******* in the wind... I'll just get ready for you to flame me back again.
But I haven't flamed you. You just don't seem to like my points. But you are certainly at the point of flaming me.
My assumption is that when they say they don't have the mac customers to cover the cost of making a mac version, they have to have a rough idea of how many mac users they do have, to compare the cost to make versus the amount of income it will generate.
And like you have said, you assume they don't have any number and just made a guess. So when I ask you explain why someone would:
1. Say they wanted to make a Mac version, because it's short sight to not.
2. Then do a cost projection and guess at an important piece of information, and choose to make it so they couldn't do number 1.
I mean really, that makes no sense. Unless we want to do the road he's lying, and really hasn't that option that WoTC just lies played out?
And for the record, since you have read every single post in this thread, I've said there should be a Mac version of all the DDI tools, but I understand why they aren't doing it at this time. I've also said speaking up is good and I'm not saying don't. But it won't change the fact, they aren't going to do it till it's profitable.
Again reading for the win. I guess that's what you mean by flaming.
ddi didn't exist when this "survey" was done.
I really love posting this AGAIN
the thing about it.. is that any given time a webmaster can look at his incoming usage details and see who uses what. so there is no "survey" actively done the server logs it. you guys make it sound like this was a conscious thing (looking at the usage reports), but really they're probably analyzed often.
I would have love to have done a mac version. I have a mac. I also have an iphone.
When I originally joined the project though I was given a 6 month time frame to full release, 3 months to beta, and by the way, that includes the time I could spend hiring a staff. Staff was, fortunately, hired in short order, and I was lucky to get some great people on the team. With the short schedule though we were making decisions between releasing it as a web app, or perhaps winforms. We mocked up a web app and it wasn't responsive enough, we mocked up a winforms prototype, and it was slow and lacked the ability to do all the things we wanted to do so we ported to WPF which set us back a week but was so worth it. We were able to do more things, have better control of the UI and development time was very fast.
Given the short schedule that we had it wouldn't have been reasonable to make a multi-platform version. Once we were done with the initial build I did cost out what it would take to make a mac version, as I think it is short sighted not to make one. The problem being that Wizards just doesn't have enough mac customers yet. They would need something like 10 times as many in order for it to break even, and that's not counting the fact that the majority of mac users can run windows apps in some sort of vm setup.
It's also entirely possible that by the time there are enough mac customers there will also be either native osx support for wpf, or some sort of rapid development tool for mac/iphone that could be trivially ported too. It's also possible that with the coming release of windows7 that XP will drop in price so much that it doesn't make sense not to have a copy running in a vm with your mac.
See once again you aren't looking at what was posted. The very same line you underlined states that the information was gathered AFTER he had created the initial build as in the thing was released. You really need to read instead of trying to defend WotC at all cost, regardless of what they do. They also say they didn't do it because Mac users can use VM setups to run it. Which is my whole point. maybe there is a select few that can us VMs with little or no problems, but most people find it difficult or annoying to use a VM to run something that would be trivial to port over.
Elf didn't say he looked at his usage details. Elf said he looked at the number of Mac subscribers. These subscribers numbers would be skewed because if they wanted to use the CB they would have to be running windows in a VM. So basically the only mac users would have been the ones that were downloading the magazines instead of using the CB. Since I don't think there's any argument that the CB is the major draw those numbers are going to be off.
Once again in case you couldn't understand it the last four times I posted it. READ THE QUOTE BY ELF PLEASE. If you want to have further discussion please READ THE QUOTE BY ELF. After that if you want to talk about this further READ THE QUOTE BY ELF. Thank you.
ddi didn't exist yet (there were no subscribers).
I think we're all close to the same page here, but our time frame is a bit off.
anyways the fact of the present is that it simply isn't possibly to port the CB without a major rewrite of the CB engine. I'm not defending WoTC's decision on WPF , the anti bsd/linux factor, I'm simply trying to explain the context of the situation.
Basically they are hoping for mono to catch up on WPF, which isn't likely to happen soon.
initial build =/= the released CB
ddi didn't exist yet (there were no subscribers).
I think we're all close to the same page here, but our time frame is a bit off.
anyways the fact of the present is that it simply isn't possibly to port the CB without a major rewrite of the CB engine. I'm not defending WoTC's decision on WPF , the anti bsd/linux factor, I'm simply trying to explain the context of the situation.
Basically they are hoping for mono to catch up on WPF, which isn't likely to happen soon.
Right, initial build doesn't mean it had been released yet.
Even if it had been released when he put his cost numbers together, It doesn't mean that they only used information about Macs vs PCs, from that point on.
And yes we are on the same page. There should be a Mac version. Just some of us understand why there isn't one.
Right, initial build doesn't mean it had been released yet.
Even if it had been released when he put his cost numbers together, It doesn't mean that they only used information about Macs vs PCs, from that point on.
And yes we are on the same page. There should be a Mac version. Just some of us understand why there isn't one.
We all understand why there isn't one... I don't know why you keep fighting when there is no fight to be had...
We all understand why there isn't one... I don't know why you keep fighting when there is no fight to be had...
the cycle of this thread repeats happens when people don't RtFT, you aren't guilty of this.
this is near the last relapse, IIRC.
honestly, we all kind meta-added to the cycle.
We're WAY off topic here.
People are welcome to request a MAC version, and in fact, we have seen that WotC has both considered this, and have even asked for feedback.
There is not a MAC version at the moment, and while that's unfortunate it isn't going to change overnight.
Arguing back and forth about the matter is only going to lead to a threadlock.
Pack up your bags and move along, please.
[/VCL]
[VCL]
We're WAY off topic here.
People are welcome to request a MAC version, and in fact, we have seen that WotC has both considered this, and have even asked for feedback.
There is not a MAC version at the moment, and while that's unfortunate it isn't going to change overnight.
Arguing back and forth about the matter is only going to lead to a threadlock.
Pack up your bags and move along, please.
[/VCL]
THANK YOU
It is irritating that I can't run Character Builder native on my machine… but that's all. Mac users have a number of options to run Windows on their machines, which is what I do.
Yes it's a pain to restart every time I want to check and see if Divine Power is updated to the CB yet, but I'll live. Yes I wish it wasn't necessary to go to the trouble, but for now I'm putting up with it.
It's probably worth noting though that if some competitor could offer me the exact same service which operated on my OS, I would very likely take them up on it.
While I'm new to this discussion, I am a Mac user, and a DDI subscriber.
It is irritating that I can't run Character Builder native on my machine… but that's all. Mac users have a number of options to run Windows on their machines, which is what I do.
Yes it's a pain to restart every time I want to check and see if Divine Power is updated to the CB yet, but I'll live. Yes I wish it wasn't necessary to go to the trouble, but for now I'm putting up with it.
It's probably worth noting though that if some competitor could offer me the exact same service which operated on my OS, I would very likely take them up on it.
It won't happen though. Its against the GSL and IP laws. They could make something that was customizable enough to do it, but not directly like the CB.
It's probably worth noting though that if some competitor could offer me the exact same service which operated on my OS, I would very likely take them up on it.
And I think that is the very crux of the issue. I know that HeroLab has a 4th edition character builder, and if you have an D&DI account, it will pull down and integrate new data, so it IS possible to do. Unfortunately, HeroLab is also Windows-only. I used HeroLab for Mutants & Masterminds, and it was a VERY nice app for that. I'd readily pay them for a Mac-capable HeroLab\Character Builder analog.
The point is, if someone else provides that functionality, I'd pay for it. ON TOP of my subscription fee to D&DI that I need to have to get the updates. That's how much it irritates me that I can't run CB natively...
While I'm new to this discussion, I am a Mac user, and a DDI subscriber.
It is irritating that I can't run Character Builder native on my machine… but that's all. Mac users have a number of options to run Windows on their machines, which is what I do.
Yes it's a pain to restart every time I want to check and see if Divine Power is updated to the CB yet, but I'll live. Yes I wish it wasn't necessary to go to the trouble, but for now I'm putting up with it.
It's probably worth noting though that if some competitor could offer me the exact same service which operated on my OS, I would very likely take them up on it.
Bunker, they will announce when the next update will be, and what will be in it. They do this for each monthly update. The next one is August 4th
Bwhahahahaha! (Evil laughter and such)
(For those of you who are satire challenged, I'm of course joking here.)
I find it frustrating that there is no version that will run on a mac operating system. I would love to see a mac version. I've held off buying a DDI subscription for this fact as many others have.
I just came back to D&D after a 2 year hiatus (Playing Hero System - Champions), to try out 4th edition. I am hoping 4th edition works out to be not bad, but if it isn't good, I might use the Hero system and Fantasy Hero to run my games. At least they have a java based character builder...
I am amazed with a company of this size (waaay bigger than Hero Games), they did not have the foresight to allow time to fashion a character builder that was web based. The day of the single platform applications is over people... Google could take another chunk of the OS market soon, and they will hit Microsoft right in the beanbag. They will be going after the low end/inexpensive laptop market. Being able to retrieve D&D character info on your Blackberry or iPhone is what people want now.
Anyways, hope to see a mac version. I will plop down my 6 bucks a month as soon as I see one. Not before. I am not buying a $70 emulator just to run this for $6/month. Silly. Nor am I going to reboot my machine every time I want to use the program by dual booting. That is even more ludicrous.
The day of the single platform applications is over people...
Really? Hmm... I guess all those single platform applications i see in the stores must be figments of my imagination...
Hi I am new to the thread here, been playing D&D since 1979 (all versions), as well as many other games and game systems through the years.
I find it frustrating that there is no version that will run on a mac operating system. I would love to see a mac version. I've held off buying a DDI subscription for this fact as many others have.
I just came back to D&D after a 2 year hiatus (Playing Hero System - Champions), to try out 4th edition. I am hoping 4th edition works out to be not bad, but if it isn't good, I might use the Hero system and Fantasy Hero to run my games. At least they have a java based character builder...
The day of the single platform applications is over people... Google could take another chunk of the OS market soon, and they will hit Microsoft right in the beanbag. They will be going after the low end/inexpensive laptop market. Being able to retrieve D&D character info on your Blackberry or iPhone is what people want now.
Anyways, hope to see a mac version. I will plop down my 6 bucks a month as soon as I see one. Not before. I am not buying a $70 emulator just to run this for $6/month. Silly. Nor am I going to reboot my machine every time I want to use the program by dual booting. That is even more ludicrous.
Seriously, it sounds to me like it's at least worth it for Wizards to look into.
As I understand it, the biggest hurdle in a Mac version of character builder is that it's written in .Net and that's only on Windows. I recently stumbled across Mono, which says that it's an open source, cross-platform version of .Net. Apparently, it's pretty popular right now: Electronic Arts even used it to make The Sims 3 (which works on both Windows and Mac OS X). Now I'm no programmer, but I wonder if it would be possible to take the existing code for the Character Builder and use Mono to build a version that would work for Mac OS X and Linux. Heck, they've even got a Migration Analyzer that can examine the code and identify platform specific items and things that Mono can't handle yet.
Seriously, it sounds to me like it's at least worth it for Wizards to look into.
It might work, but more than likely they use something on top of .NET that won't work on Mono.
http://www.mono-project.com/WPF
viva la mac!!!
If a program is pirate-able, it will be pirated no matter what Operating System it is on.
or spend $70-$100 on a program to be able to emulate.
You've said this twice now, and it's still wrong.
Yeah, I'm extremely confused as to how writing a program in Java will instantly stop its piracy.
You've said this twice now, and it's still wrong.
Virtual Box is still not quite up to snuff though... vm Fusion is the best game in town from my experience, and is going to run you around $80 + tax, (and still has the frustrations and problems that the Mac users here are not asking for a way to used Windows on their Mac, they are asking for Character builder to work natively on their Mac). Furthermore, while there may be free versions of a Windows OS until System 7 [sic] comes out, it will not be free long term, so calling it 'free' is not really giving a long term solution at 'no extra cost'.
Appreciate your help, really I do, but as at least one of the Mac users out there, virtualization is proving to be more of a hassle than character builder is a good program (and it is a good program).
Yeah, I'm extremely confused as to how writing a program in Java will instantly stop its piracy.
If you can only get the database information by logging into their servers and querying their online databases, then it will instantly stop the piracy.
Writing the application in Java would make this much easier to do and be multiplatform at the same time...
Query the database for all data. Make a copy of the database. Edit HOSTS file to redirect web-queries to localhost database.
And pirated.
But really, why do these threads always devolve into piracy talks?
[ONTOPIC]
I vote for them to make a Mac version if it's fiscally responsible for them to do so!
[/ONTOPIC]
It wouldn't stop it. Merely make it more difficult.
Query the database for all data. Make a copy of the database. Edit HOSTS file to redirect web-queries to localhost database.
And pirated.
You are incorrect. You can't query a secure database without proper authentication. You could not get all the table information like that directly without an administrator password.
About the only way it would actually be more "pirate-proof" is if you had the server do all calculations. You tell it "I want a Dragonborn Cleric with these powers, these feats..." and the only thing it returns is a character sheet with all the info you need to play.
Even that has problems, though, as the user has to be able to see all the options and what they do. That means that information is easily copied. So the only thing that would be difficult would be doing all the calculations. Not to mention that method would strongly reduce the usability of the Character Builder.
I'm hardly a database professor, but the first rule of computer security (other than avoiding social engineering) is that nothing is secure.
The insider is losing a lot of potential money no matter how you look at it, because of using the most hacked software programming tools and operating system in the world...
viva la mac!!!
Haha. And if the Mac was the best selling OS then they'd be the most hacked. Totally irrelevant.
If they weren't making money off it, they wouldn't be doing it.
I'm hardly a database professor, but the first rule of computer security (other than avoiding social engineering) is that nothing is secure.
Indeed. But some things are not worth the effort to put into it. So if there is much more risk involved, exposing yourself, because you have to actually hack into the WOTC servers to get a $10/month app...
It won't happen, unless of course someone from WOTC (an employee with security access) decided to post this on a torrent... Which is always possible. It should be easy to narrow down who this is however, considering not everyone there would have that kind of access.
Regardless my point is, WOTC gave their program away for free the moment they decided to program it using the current tools, and is charging only honest people, or people who do not know how to download and install from torrent.
My experience is there is many more dishonest people than honest. ;)
Hey, I know I can get this app for free (without subscription) for my mac if I decide to dual boot, or use VmWare Fusion. Heck I can download the VmWare Fusion, and XP Iso for free as well. Or better yet install the Windows 7 for free.
I don't need to pay an insider monthly fee or wait for a java app. Maybe I should just shut up and let WOTC do what they do best, get owned by torrents downloading their books and apps...
I'm just trying to help them, and help improve their relationship with their customers, by giving them options to satisfy more of them. I am a customer that is willing to pay if it is done right, and I am voicing here what I think would be the right way to do it.
Is that wrong?
Anyways, that's my last post on this topic. Talking about piracy really gets nothing done except make people emotional one way or the other.
No, it's not wrong. I just don't believe what you're saying would actually change anything for the better.
haha. Well, here is one BIG thing that would be for the better...
More people would be able to use the program without huge hassles...
sigh...
This is my last post on the topic as well. I am wasting my breath here... Good luck WOTC...
Which means that even if you no longer get server updates, the character builder is your in perpetuity.
I'm not sure why people think WOTC wouldn't get even MORE complaints of incompetence if the char builder was an online-only tool.
A web-based applet is a non-starter IMO.
You do realize one of the main appeals for Character Builder (and now Monster Builder) is that it is totally offline?
Which means that even if you no longer get server updates, the character builder is your in perpetuity.
I'm not sure why people think WOTC wouldn't get even MORE complaints of incompetence if the char builder was an online-only tool.
A web-based applet is a non-starter IMO.
Yeah, but most people have internet almost wherever they go, so it shouldn't be a problem. Also it would actually justify the monthly fee instead of a single price for the software. I mean I grab a month here or there and then cancel because there is no real draw for me to pay a monthly fee.
This is my last post on the topic as well. I am wasting my breath here... Good luck WOTC...
Please don't give up! WOTC is running a business. The more people that come here and tell them "I would give you money if you would [x]", the more likely they are to do [x].
I don't get the sense from anyone at WOTC that they are opposed to doing a mac version. In fact, from many of their employees, I get the impression that they are mac users and would like to have a Mac version.
However (especially now that the initial decision has been made), WOTC has to believe that there is a opportunity to make money on such a decision.
I subscribe right now, and run CB on one of my group's computers. I would pay EXTRA for a Mac version of this program (not tons extra, I would hope, but extra).
The more people who politely, but insistently, let WOTC know of the untapped money in a Mac version, the more likely it is to see the light of day.
:D
Thanks!
Please don't give up! WOTC is running a business. The more people that come here and tell them "I would give you money if you would [x]", the more likely they are to do [x].
I don't get the sense from anyone at WOTC that they are opposed to doing a mac version. In fact, from many of their employees, I get the impression that they are mac users and would like to have a Mac version.
However (especially now that the initial decision has been made), WOTC has to believe that there is a opportunity to make money on such a decision.
I subscribe right now, and run CB on one of my group's computers. I would pay EXTRA for a Mac version of this program (not tons extra, I would hope, but extra).
The more people who politely, but insistently, let WOTC know of the untapped money in a Mac version, the more likely it is to see the light of day.
Yeah, but most people have internet almost wherever they go, so it shouldn't be a problem. Also it would actually justify the monthly fee instead of a single price for the software. I mean I grab a month here or there and then cancel because there is no real draw for me to pay a monthly fee.
???? - "There is a one-time fee you can pay"....
That's not exactly an incentive for a lot of people. One of the reasons why some people even bother looking at DDI is that the tools are there even after they stop subscribing.
There's also the issue that given the unstability of WOTC's servers, you would have even more angry people who can't access the application. Right now, if for example I can't update my app, it's not really a big deal as it's still useable.
I'd be way more annoyed if when I want to use it, it tells me, "Come back tomorrow".
They just don't want to admit that people want something, so they don't have to do it. In other words they are trying to take the path of least resistance to the money, which is sad really.
I hope this is meant to be ironic.
After all, you're posting in a 300+ post thread ABOUT people wanting this other option.
If WotC wanted to ignore/silence the issue, do you think this thread would be here?
You are incorrect. You can't query a secure database without proper authentication. You could not get all the table information like that directly without an administrator password.
If the CB can run "SELECT * FROM feats", then so can someone with access to the CB. Trying to secure passwords from the user on the client side is an exercise in futility.
Yeah, but most people have internet almost wherever they go, so it shouldn't be a problem.
So it's OK to screw over people who don't have an internet connection all the time, as long as you don't need a VM?
???? - "There is a one-time fee you can pay"....
That's not exactly an incentive for a lot of people. One of the reasons why some people even bother looking at DDI is that the tools are there even after they stop subscribing.
There's also the issue that given the unstability of WOTC's servers, you would have even more angry people who can't access the application. Right now, if for example I can't update my app, it's not really a big deal as it's still useable.
I'd be way more annoyed if when I want to use it, it tells me, "Come back tomorrow".
Yeah, that's definitely an issue. Let me throw a "If the WotC website worked how it should" in there.
I hope this is meant to be ironic.
After all, you're posting in a 300+ post thread ABOUT people wanting this other option.
If WotC wanted to ignore/silence the issue, do you think this thread would be here?
I don't think WotC would shutdown a thread about this because it would just crop up elsewhere, kinda like the PDF threads they've been trying to shut down unsuccessfully. They close one thread and two more pop up. They might be considering making the CB cross-platform, but are trying to see how many people actually want it. Of course without a survey or poll they can't really get a good idea of what people want.
I still don't see how making the CB have to read everything from server-side databases has anything to do with writing it in Java.
If the CB can run "SELECT * FROM feats", then so can someone with access to the CB. Trying to secure passwords from the user on the client side is an exercise in futility.
So it's OK to screw over people who don't have an internet connection all the time, as long as you don't need a VM?
The Java is to make it cross-platform compatible.
We never said anything about securing passwords from the user on the client side. It would still require you to log in and it would (hopefully) use sessions or something else to show you were logged in.
I'm sorry but if you don't have access to the internet nearly all the time you are either 1) dirt poor, or 2) in a third world country. Neither of which bode well for your entertainment experiences.
Needing an internet connection to access the data also helps justify the monthly fee. I subscribe one month out of every 6 or so for updates and the magazines. This is because, to me, a month by month subscription for a piece of software I pick up the first month is not warranted.
I don't think WotC would shutdown a thread about this because it would just crop up elsewhere, kinda like the PDF threads they've been trying to shut down unsuccessfully. They close one thread and two more pop up. They might be considering making the CB cross-platform, but are trying to see how many people actually want it. Of course without a survey or poll they can't really get a good idea of what people want.
Honestly, I don't think they are not shutting down the thread because they fear more will pop up... in fact, Wizard staff actually posted here saying "this thread is good, thanks for letting us know this is important to a population of you out there" (I'm paraphrasing from memory).
Let's try to keep the focus here on "hello, I'd like to have CB run natively on my Mac also".
I don't think WotC would shutdown a thread about this because it would just crop up elsewhere, kinda like the PDF threads they've been trying to shut down unsuccessfully.
Actually, that isn't the reason why they aren't shutting down this thread. This thread is staying open for a number of reasons:
First, people are discussing things, calmly and politely, for which I thank all of the participants of the thread. Secondly, it is providing an indication to WotC that there are people who are interested in a MAC version of the tools. The fact that this thread is in the form of a discussion as opposed to a poll does not prevent WotC from realizing that people are interested in it. The trick is in determining whether or not the cost of porting it to a mac is going to be covered by the number of subscriptions by people with macs.
As Trathor indicated, a number of WotC employees use macs, and would like to have seen the tools be available on macs. In a perfect, ideal world, they would have done so. However, in the constraints placed upon the DDI team when they started the tools, it was obviously not a viable option.
That being said, I do think that there will eventually be Mac support for DDI.
And thanks to everyone for keeping this thread (mostly ;) ) civil. While we may all feel passionate about our PCs, I'm glad that this did not turn into a Mac vs PC flame thread.
Actually, that isn't the reason why they aren't shutting down this thread. This thread is staying open for a number of reasons:
First, people are discussing things, calmly and politely, for which I thank all of the participants of the thread. Secondly, it is providing an indication to WotC that there are people who are interested in a MAC version of the tools. The fact that this thread is in the form of a discussion as opposed to a poll does not prevent WotC from realizing that people are interested in it. The trick is in determining whether or not the cost of porting it to a mac is going to be covered by the number of subscriptions by people with macs.
As Trathor indicated, a number of WotC employees use macs, and would like to have seen the tools be available on macs. In a perfect, ideal world, they would have done so. However, in the constraints placed upon the DDI team when they started the tools, it was obviously not a viable option.
That being said, I do think that there will eventually be Mac support for DDI.
I'm sorry but if you don't have access to the internet nearly all the time you are either 1) dirt poor, or 2) in a third world country. Neither of which bode well for your entertainment experiences.
Wow, who knew that a Sysadmin for one of the largest banks in the world living in the third largest city in the wealthiest nation on earth was Dirt Poor and and\or living in a third world country?
I spend a lot of my time commuting, I'm not about to install an application like this on my work machine, even if it is only for use at lunch, and I can't get an open wireless connection from my office. I don't have an iPhone, and I can't\won't tether my Macbook on a smartphone.
Do try not be a putz, M'kay?
I'm sorry but if you don't have access to the internet nearly all the time you are either 1) dirt poor, or 2) in a third world country. Neither of which bode well for your entertainment experiences
That is a very ignorant and offensive statement. There are many more places where you can play D&D or create D&D characters than have an open internet connection.
Casting aspersions on people based on a voluntary decision they make is obnoxious. And moreover, using "dirt poor or living in a third world nation" as malediction is elitist claptrap and I have very little tolerance for it.
Besides, most third-world nations have demonstrably better cellular networks than the US does.
Trathor - everything I said is my own opinion. I often can't even articulate my own thoughts, much less what people are thinking that exist outside of my skin, so in that regard, I agree wholeheartedly.
*deep, calming, breath*
Now, how about that Character Builder? I think it should be available on a Mac without virtualization. Anyone else?
Now, how about that Character Builder? I think it should be available on a Mac without virtualization. Anyone else?
Of course or there wouldn't be 12 pages of posts.
IMO they should open up the GSL to include software releases and REALLY open up he interface to the compendium etc.
I could turn out an OS X version of the tools very quickly if I had access to the data I needed to drive it. Allow people to write their own software, brand it, but force a login to DDI to get the info they needed.
Man that would be nice, charge for DDI access but get out of the UI business for the most part.
That would be really slick.
Of course or there wouldn't be 12 pages of posts.
IMO they should open up the GSL to include software releases and REALLY open up he interface to the compendium etc.
I could turn out an OS X version of the tools very quickly if I had access to the data I needed to drive it. Allow people to write their own software, brand it, but force a login to DDI to get the info they needed.
Man that would be nice, charge for DDI access but get out of the UI business for the most part.
That would be really slick.
Actually... I think that's bloody brilliant.
Actually... I think that's bloody brilliant.
Actually... it really is!
Of course or there wouldn't be 12 pages of posts.
IMO they should open up the GSL to include software releases and REALLY open up he interface to the compendium etc.
I could turn out an OS X version of the tools very quickly if I had access to the data I needed to drive it. Allow people to write their own software, brand it, but force a login to DDI to get the info they needed.
Man that would be nice, charge for DDI access but get out of the UI business for the most part.
That would be really slick.
Actually there are several people doing this already. I don't know what the GSL has to say about it, but its pretty much already possible to read the compendium in a program, then parse what is returned.
Actually there are several people doing this already. I don't know what the GSL has to say about it, but its pretty much already possible to read the compendium in a program, then parse what is returned.
I'm aware of that, that's why I said "really" open it up. Right now it's mildly useful, but it could be much better. With express consent from WotC to build 3rd party tools you'd see much more coming out of that arena.
It seems like opening that license up and opening access to the data structures would be a brilliant way for Wizards to off-load the lion's share of the cost of development, make money on licensing, and shut up an increasingly noisy group of gamers, without really costing them anything nor poaching lost sales.
Dare I say Win-Win?
Dare I say Win-Win?
Could you say Mac-Win?
;) :P
This is from one of the (ex)-devs on DDI and macs:
I would have love to have done a mac version. I have a mac. I also have an iphone.
When I originally joined the project though I was given a 6 month time frame to full release, 3 months to beta, and by the way, that includes the time I could spend hiring a staff. Staff was, fortunately, hired in short order, and I was lucky to get some great people on the team. With the short schedule though we were making decisions between releasing it as a web app, or perhaps winforms. We mocked up a web app and it wasn't responsive enough, we mocked up a winforms prototype, and it was slow and lacked the ability to do all the things we wanted to do so we ported to WPF which set us back a week but was so worth it. We were able to do more things, have better control of the UI and development time was very fast.
Given the short schedule that we had it wouldn't have been reasonable to make a multi-platform version. Once we were done with the initial build I did cost out what it would take to make a mac version, as I think it is short sighted not to make one. The problem being that Wizards just doesn't have enough mac customers yet. They would need something like 10 times as many in order for it to break even, and that's not counting the fact that the majority of mac users can run windows apps in some sort of vm setup.
It's also entirely possible that by the time there are enough mac customers there will also be either native osx support for wpf, or some sort of rapid development tool for mac/iphone that could be trivially ported too. It's also possible that with the coming release of windows7 that XP will drop in price so much that it doesn't make sense not to have a copy running in a vm with your mac.
Actually, I think HeroLab is already doing this, now that you mention it, but it kinda moot, because HeroLab is not available on Mac (and does not play well with Winex).
They are to a limited extent, but they need to be careful. WotC cannot copyright the mechanics (and they definitely aren't patented) so there's quite a bit you can do legally without permission.
The problem is how far you can go before having to fight it out with WotC. No matter if you're right or wrong that can be costly.
I know there's an app or two out there that leverages the calls into the compendium. They're small potatoes though. Official permission (and permission to brand) would go a looong way.
Odds are good that I'll get around to implementing my own tools, but since there's no way to release them safely, I'll keep them to myself. It's a shame.
I'm aware of that, that's why I said "really" open it up. Right now it's mildly useful, but it could be much better. With express consent from WotC to build 3rd party tools you'd see much more coming out of that arena.
Yeah, it'd be great, but WotC answers to Ha$bro when it comes to money matters and each person that puts out their own program would be considered a loss in monetary terms. So it'll never happen. Even if it pushed up the subscription rate by 187% because of its usefulness. I'd gladly pay for DDI if there were many other programs that parsed the compendium data into useful information. Since that is not the case I'm sticking to my one month out of six program.
As it is now, WotC is not selling the Builder, they are selling the Data! How could opening that market (people who need access to that Data) do anything but increase sales?
But you're missing the point. In order to have sign-in that will get you access to the Data updates, you have to have a D&DI subscription. Allowing third-party tools to READ that data, moreso encouraging interoperability, would draw a lot of additional subscriptions. I fail to see how increasing the subscription numbers would poach sales?
As it is now, WotC is not selling the Builder, they are selling the Data! How could opening that market (people who need access to that Data) do anything but increase sales?
Your not understanding.
They don't look so much at possible increase of revenue as they do loss of revenue. Every program that is made would be a potential loss of revenue. They'd be like "Why didn't we make one of those?" or "how come our character builder doesn't do that" and on and on. They'd tally up how much they'd lose and decide not to do it. Its the same reason they got rid of PDF sales, it wasn't how much more money they'd make on sales and free advertising and try before you buy sales, its how much money they'd lose from piracy. Its just how corporations of this nature think (Ha$bro).
Its just how corporations of this nature think (Ha$bro).
First off... can we move past the immature use of dollar signs as S's in company names? It isn't clever, it isn't cute, and it makes what might be a rational well thought out point into a parody at best.
Secondly... any company would think that way regardless of their size. If you think companies who produce pirate-able material are goign to make more money because people will "try before you buy" due to piracy you're are significantly misinformed.
I have to say, that ranks up there on my list of "out of left field" statements I have read on the internet.
First off... can we move past the immature use of dollar signs as S's in company names? It isn't clever, it isn't cute, and it makes what might be a rational well thought out point into a parody at best.
Secondly... any company would think that way regardless of their size. If you think companies who produce pirate-able material are goign to make more money because people will "try before you buy" due to piracy you're are significantly misinformed.
I have to say, that ranks up there on my list of "out of left field" statements I have read on the internet.
Really? because a recent study found that it is exactly how I said it. Having your digital material pirated actually equals more sales. Simply because most people that are pirating it aren't going to pay anyway, and there is a small subset that will look at the material and say 'I want this now'. I think its in the 'should we restart the PDF thread' thread. I don't know if that's the exact name of it.
Here's a link to one where they discuss it I'm not sure its the one that quotes the study.
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1180426
2) The music industry is a different beast than the RPG industry. You can't compare them. With music, people see buying the CD as supporting the artist (an individual) as opposed to a corporation (Sony, BMG, etc.). It can also be skewed depending on if the music being talked about is from a big label or an independent label/unknown artist. This perception is helped by the fact that music artists may get an advance, but they also make royalties on the sale of their music, plus residuals when it's played, etc. People don't see buying RPGs as supporting the writers of the books, even if they're freelance since they're paid up front for their work (salary or freelance per word fee).
3) People who do pirate are more likely to do so from larger companies. Go to any torrent site and search WotC and you can find almost their entire RPG catalog. Search Patfinder and you will find a few things from their catalog but not a lot. The psychology of it is people feel that stealing from big companies doesn't hurt them as much as it does smaller companies. People are more willing to shell out their money to small businesses for whatever reason you like (they're the underdog, they are an evil $ corporation, etc.).
4) There's the international factor. Outside of the US/EU, piracy is a huge industry. They priate seemingly everything (CDs, movies, books, software, watches, clothing, accessories, etc) and sell bootleg copies.
All of it is rather funny because every large company was once a small company struggling to make a profit before they hit on the thing that catapulted them into success. (Magic: The Gathering for WotC) Then they make it big and get a $ tagged onto their name and derided for wanting our money (and don't let the non-profit tag fool you... they want your money just as bad).
What? How did this get onto a piracy discussion? Aren't there other threads for that?
Yes, yes there are other threads for discussing WotCs decisions with regards to pdf sales. Discussions on that topic, once started, tend to very rapidly drown out all other attempts at conversation and, more often than not, result in a slide towards flamewars and ORCing of a thread.
Please return to the topic at hand.
Thanks!!
First off... can we move past the immature use of dollar signs as S's in company names? It isn't clever, it isn't cute, and it makes what might be a rational well thought out point into a parody at best.
Secondly... any company would think that way regardless of their size. If you think companies who produce pirate-able material are goign to make more money because people will "try before you buy" due to piracy you're are significantly misinformed.
I have to say, that ranks up there on my list of "out of left field" statements I have read on the internet.
I use the $ in Ha$bro and Micro$oft to convey the following statement "[insert company name] is not about its customers or its fanbase, they are entirely money oriented and won't consider a decision based on anything else, unless all choices equal the same financial output". So take it how you want to or ignore it. I don't care. I'm not doing it to be cute or clever. I'm doing it to save myself from having to type a lot of stuff in every post about said companies.
I use the $ in Ha$bro and Micro$oft to convey the following statement "[insert company name] is not about its customers or its fanbase, they are entirely money oriented and won't consider a decision based on anything else, unless all choices equal the same financial output".
Well, be prepared to add a $ to every company name then because no company is going to sail down a river of red ink just to make their customer base happy. Every company is money oriented. If they're not, they don't say in business. That's just a silly, silly statement.
Back on topic (sorry Mudbunny!):
25 people on a forum thread saying they want something are not going to make a company (any company) change it's mind about something. Having said company receive hundreds and hundreds of emails/letters/phone calls (unique, not hundreds from the same 5 people
) for it will get them to change their mind. Hitting them significantly in the pocketbook will do it too.Well, be prepared to add a $ to every company name then because no company is going to sail down a river of red ink just to make their customer base happy. Every company is money oriented. If they're not, they don't say in business. That's just a silly, silly statement.
Back on topic (sorry Mudbunny!):
25 people on a forum thread saying they want something are not going to make a company (any company) change it's mind about something. Having said company receive hundreds and hundreds of emails/letters/phone calls (unique, not hundreds from the same 5 people
Actually there are such companies, but they are usually run by an individual and not a corporation. So until these companies start acting in a way that is different I will feel justified.
Its also a matter of public record who owns controlling interest in Hasbro (like all publically traded companies).
Every company has to have profit in consideration or in a capitalistic society (like we are) they will be driven out business.
Hasbro is still majority owned by the Hassenfeld family, you can see this as they haven't shut wizards down despite the downward tumble of Magic (the reason they bought it in the first place).
Its also a matter of public record who owns controlling interest in Hasbro (like all publically traded companies).
Every company has to have profit in consideration or in a capitalistic society (like we are) they will be driven out business.
Actually it doesn't matter who has majority ownership, because it is the job of the board of directors to make sure the stock prices don't dip, and to make money for the company. I think stock holders might be able to out vote the board on occasion, but they would have to be in it for something other than the money to have the motivation. Most stockholders want money too. As that is the idea behind stock in a company.
The topic. Return to it please.
I figure the only way WOTC ever moves forward and develops mac (or cross-platform) applications is if those of us who don't normally say anything at all around here finally speak up. So here I am, adding just one more vote/voice.
WOTC, please develop your software applications and the Character Builder (particularly) to be cross-platform and mac-friendly.
Personally, I am completely platform-neutral, so this has nothing to do with platform merits. There are 9 people in my gaming group, and at least 3 of us use macs. And 1 of those is the DM.
I also work at a University, and while Windows certainly dominates the business/commercial market, Apple has a very significant portion of the home/personal/educational computing market- particularly amongst your target demographics (under 40). Apple's home user share is much higher than Apple's ~10% share overall (including all business users) would indicate. I'm not aware of actual stats, but I'd guess mac HOME (and school, etc., eliminating all business-only use) users in the US are probably more like 25%-33% of the market- if not even more. At my University the balance between Windows and Mac OS is probably about 50/50 amongst student users. And I'm guessing the vast majority of D&D players are using their D&D software on a home computer, and not on a business/work computer.
Develop for the mac. Please. To not do so is incredibly short-sighted. Not that the mac is going to suddenly become the platform of choice for the majority of computer users, but mac users are nonetheless a rather significant portion of the community. To unnecessarily (unnecessary because cross-platform development is entirely possible and feasible) eliminate/ignore/frustrate any portion of your customer base is just really bad practice. It hurts them and it ultimately hurts you. It even hurts the rest of the Windows-using D&D community, as they miss out on the full participation and enthusiasm of their mac-using peers. Lose-lose-lose for everybody.
I also would like to see the Character Builder run on a Mac. I'm not super-thrilled about having to load up an emulator package just to run Windows, just to run the Character Builder (it's definitely not worth installing Bootcamp for). Given that the Mac platform is relatively easy to develop for (even using .NET), its rather surprising that WoTC chose to lock out Mac users the way they did.
Honestly, I'm a little on the fence about the value of the DnDInsider subscription and this is definitely pushing me away from it.
For the record, I use all three major OSes at work, but Mac (with a Windows emulator occasionally) at home and elsewhere.
For what it's worth, there are 7 in our group and we ALL have Macs. *I* have to bring my machines (win laptop, fusion VM) so that the DM and/or players can update the characters every time we play. We're completely frustrated by the lack of Mac support, and you'd gain several subscriptions by supporting the platform.
Here's another vote for a Mac version. I keep seeing .NET tossed around here and there. If it is a .NET app, then Mono will make it work on the Mac. I am seeing this more and more as developers reach out to Mac users.
Better still, port it to a rich web based environment.
And linux!!!!
I pessonally wonder why does a such software NEEDS to be propriatary?
It's just some algorythms, a database of items and their descriptions, and a fancy interface!
+1 vote for porting the apps to Mac. man, if there were something i could do to make it happen faster, i would. who do i make the check out to? what address do i send the strippers to?
opinion: it's a smaller market share, but it's evidently a market share that's willing to spend significantly more money on a product they desire. that fact alone makes it look to me like low-hanging fruit.
anecdote: i and my circle of 5 gamers have all moved to Mac platforms in the last 3 years. so maybe my +1 vote should actually be a +6 vote for porting the apps to Mac?
I can completely understand why WotC hasn't poured money into Mac development. As a Mac user and a 4E player I really want a Mac version of Character Builder though.
I think the idea of a web based solution is the way to go. It's platform independent and easy to update.
Either way, count my vote for a Mac or Web version.
Add me to the list. 3 Macs & 2 iPhones in our house. I don't want to install Windows for only 1 program on only 1 computer. I like the other content on D&D Insider, but have not renewed my subscription.
I just want to toss in my 2 coppers and say that I would love to see a Mac version of the CB (and all future tools). Its odd that such a short sighted approach was taken when creating the builder and tools. Thank the gods for Boot Camp. No one around our table has a stand alone PC!
It's a great tool to use that would be even greater if it were multi-platform.
On another note, a Character Sheet view for iPhone would be awesome. iplay4e.com is nice but I'm surprised WotC and Hasbro aren't already all over this...
I too would like to say that I'd love to see a Mac version of the character builder. I started to play D&D about the time when the 3.0 books shipped and I've been a huge fan of it ever since. I love 4th edition, but I'm really disappointed that I can't run the Character Builder on my Mac. Well, at least I can feel left out together with the other member of my group who is also a Mac user. That makes 33% of my group Mac users.
I just wanted to post and say that, because I most probably don't show up on WotC's statistics, since I'm not a DDI subscriber. I would be, of course, if I could run the CB on my computer. I just hope WotC doesn't base their decision of not making a Mac version, on the percentage of Mac users for a non-Mac product. That would be kind of silly.
According to my google search, a software engineer with half a decade-ish of experience should make approx 70,000$ a year. That means, for the Mac users to pay his salary we would need 1200 DDI subscribers that are Mac users (assuming they all pay for a whole year, which is what brings WotC the least money on an annual basis. Also assuming that these people do not buy a single book which is somewhat unlikely). Is that a realistic number? I don't know... But here's my take on it:
According to browser market shares, a little less than 10% hits are from Macs. Let's say 8%, so we won't overshoot our estimate. Now, for 8% of the DDI users to be 1200 people, we would need 15,000 subscribers. I couldn't find the number of DDI subscribers right now, so I can't say how close this number is to the actual number of subscribers. Does anyone know?
Of course, a DDI subscriber doesn't just pay the salary of the guy who writes the CB. They pay all sorts of things. But look at it this way: If 1200 new people would subscribe for a year if there were a Mac version, and the cost of getting a Mac version would be a guy that made 70,000$ a year, then that guy would just marginally make a profit (since 1200*59,40 is 71280) for the company. There is, of course, server maintenance and support to be done, so the actual number of new Mac users might be i little higher, but I don't imagine it would be very much higher.
Then, of course, comes the added benefit that a Mac version of the CB is partly an iPod Touch/iPhone/iPad version of the CB, since both are written in Objective-C and some of the code can be used for both platforms. So if the same guy did both the Mac version and the iPhone/Pod/Pad version, you'd essentially pay for the Mac version and get the iPhone one for free! Or the other way around, of course.
Well, that's my 2 cp for now. Anyone know the number of DDI subscribers? I'm getting curious...
There are plenty of ways to do cross-platform development these days, but just as Dibly says, writing a Mac character building using Objective-C will give you a lot of re-use if you do an iPad version.
Of course, if you just made it run as a Web App as part of DDI, perhaps with some offline support, that would satisfy everyone, no?
With the Apple/Mac platform now closing in on 10% of the market it only makes financial sense to create a Mac version as well as the .Net pc version.
When you consider the vast number of iPod Touchs, iPhones or iPads that you could create the app for as well - or at least a character reader app it becomes ludicrous. Do you (Hasbro) realize the number of gamers that have these devices that would gladly pay you additional revenue for this single app?
iPlay4e.com is wonderful, but obviously depends on an internet connection which isn't always feasible.
Something like the action cards on iPad would be amazing ... all laid out so you can move them around, tap them to show they've been used, etc. ... in fact, I might just write that myself!
monoontheweb.info/
Why is it that we are waiting this long for an Mac OS X version of the Character Builder?
With the Apple/Mac platform now closing in on 10% of the market it only makes financial sense to create a Mac version as well as the .Net pc version.
When you consider the vast number of iPod Touchs, iPhones or iPads that you could create the app for as well - or at least a character reader app it becomes ludicrous. Do you (Hasbro) realize the number of gamers that have these devices that would gladly pay you additional revenue for this single app?
I bring my iPad to every weekly Thursday night game and the games I run every other Sunday. It's now become an essential part of my gaming gear. Since there's no character builder on the iPad, I'm developing a character sheet in FileMaker Pro which also isn't on the iPad, but can be synced to the iPad using a tool called FM Touch. It's pretty cool and has allowed me to build an initiative tracker and a monster database which are still very much a work in progress. Unlike a notebook computer, the ipad sits flat on the table and doesn't get in the way of my interaction with the others at the table.
Why is it that we are waiting this long for an Mac OS X version of the Character Builder?
With the Apple/Mac platform now closing in on 10% of the market it only makes financial sense to create a Mac version as well as the .Net pc version.
When you consider the vast number of iPod Touchs, iPhones or iPads that you could create the app for as well - or at least a character reader app it becomes ludicrous. Do you (Hasbro) realize the number of gamers that have these devices that would gladly pay you additional revenue for this single app?
I bring my iPad to every weekly Thursday night game and the games I run every other Sunday. It's now become an essential part of my gaming gear. Since there's no character builder on the iPad, I'm developing a character sheet in FileMaker Pro which also isn't on the iPad, but can be synced to the iPad using a tool called FM Touch. It's pretty cool and has allowed me to build an initiative tracker and a monster database which are still very much a work in progress. Unlike a notebook computer, the ipad sits flat on the table and doesn't get in the way of my interaction with the others at the table.
Yeah, when we play, I have people loving using the iPad... I have another guy who is buying one next week or so, specifically for viewing his characters as a PDF.
I'd love to see what you have made with Filemaker Pro if you would be willing to share it.