-Scott
As for the DDI apps, unless you have an Intel Mac and a copy of Windows to boot into via Apple's Boot Camp, I'm afraid you're out of luck.
Regarding iPhone apps, you may be interested in this thread.
see the link in my sig.
... and mine
I do hope they extend to macs.
I'm a Mac user. Regrettably, I don't have an Intel Mac yet, but I do have a box of excrement labeled "Inspiron 8500" that runs Windows programs when it can be bothered to do so. Despite the need to boot up the poopbox, I'm totally on board with using the D&Di OGT with my online gaming group and just putting up with the multiple system crashes every hour. It sounds awesome (well, not the crashing, but you get what I mean).
Unfortunately, I have one player -- one -- who is also a Mac user, pre-Intel, and doesn't have the disposable income to purchase a second computer. So we won't be using the OGT. We have no recourse. We're all very disappointed about it, but we're not about to exclude our poor friend from the game just so we can use D&Di.
And there it is. Seven players' subscriptions hosed by one player's pocketbook and choice of computing platform. Nostradumbass has spoken.
Unfortunately, I have one player -- one -- who is also a Mac user, pre-Intel, and doesn't have the disposable income to purchase a second computer. So we won't be using the OGT. We have no recourse.
No recourse regarding DDI's Game Table, maybe. But you could always use a cross-platform virtual tabletop program, like the one in my sig. That way, no one gets left out.
No recourse regarding DDI's Game Table, maybe. But you could always use a cross-platform virtual tabletop program, like the one in my sig. That way, no one gets left out.
And that's what we'll be doing. Which doesn't help Wizards' bottom line much, unfortunately.
And that's what we'll be doing. Which doesn't help Wizards' bottom line much, unfortunately.
It is unfortunate that they didn't make a Mac client but I can understand why. One, the majority still use Windows. Two, a high chunk of people with Macs have Intel versions now that can run boot camp or parallels or whatever its called. And three, they apparently already had a .Net and DirectX thing to start from. To a certain degree Mac did itself a disservice by creating parallels as it now excuses people to not consider making a Mac version of something if its something that can run under parallels.
It is unfortunate that they didn't make a Mac client but I can understand why. One, the majority still use Windows. Two, a high chunk of people with Macs have Intel versions now that can run boot camp or parallels or whatever its called. And three, they apparently already had a .Net and DirectX thing to start from. To a certain degree Mac did itself a disservice by creating parallels as it now excuses people to not consider making a Mac version of something if its something that can run under parallels.
If you use bootcamp or parallels you still have to own a legal copy of XP. People buy macs because they prefer them to pcs. Not to mention that Macs are on the rise, and are becoming more popular all the time, not to mention their superior hardware is out of my price range. I myself don't own one because I know that to play a lot of games that I like a PC is preferable. And mac didn't create parallels. Lots of companies are porting programs to Mac OSX more and more all the time because the Mac user numbers are increasing.
In fact Mac doesn't have a say when it comes to parallels making a virtual desktop of windows for Mac users, its Microsoft that has the say. Parallels is not allowed to make a Mac OS X for windows because Apple said they can't, specifically because Windows can barely hold together itself let alone Mac OS X on top of it.
After saying all that, I do believe that WotC will have a mac port, possibly D&Di will be java applications or something similar which is OS independent and won't matter what OS you run.
http://yoav.org/dice/
Still, I would like something more romantic on the device that could exploit its capabilities, like a 3d motion sensitive "cubilete" for any quantity and type of dice. You just shake your iPhone and you see the dice roll. I bet it is quite simple to do it.
And, if tools like these come to the iPhone eventually bigger tools could come to the mac too, since every iPhone development is made on Mac and share almost the same frameworks.
Well.. I figure, if EA can put out the spore creature creator on mac (at the same time as PC) then WotC could have done the same thing, they just chose not to for whatever reason, whether, they are snobs, lazy or just don't know how, whatever the reason, since DDI won't support me, I'm not going to support it.
Just to clear some stuff up (probably won't make you feel better but it at least answers your reason) they started using an engine that was existing that uses DirectX and is written in .NET which means its Windows based. Yes they could have designed a Mac client in parallel development but that would mean higher cost and probably longer time, and then trying to get the two to work together I would suspect be harder. So they decided that since the majority use Windows still, that it would be easier to do that.
It is unfortunate that they didn't make a Mac client but I can understand why. One, the majority still use Windows. Two, a high chunk of people with Macs have Intel versions now that can run boot camp or parallels or whatever its called. And three, they apparently already had a .Net and DirectX thing to start from. To a certain degree Mac did itself a disservice by creating parallels as it now excuses people to not consider making a Mac version of something if its something that can run under parallels.
Spoken like a person who doesn't know what he is talking about. Mac did not create parallels. Parallels is the company and the product not Mac. And while the majority is windows, the mac presence is growing. But they have fumbled many things with this release why should they do this part right and offer multiple options...
Just to clear some stuff up (probably won't make you feel better but it at least answers your reason) they started using an engine that was existing that uses DirectX and is written in .NET which means its Windows based. Yes they could have designed a Mac client in parallel development but that would mean higher cost and probably longer time, and then trying to get the two to work together I would suspect be harder. So they decided that since the majority use Windows still, that it would be easier to do that.
Wow, again with showing your lack of knowledge? Do you program, from this post I doubt it...
Spoken like a person who doesn't know what he is talking about. Mac did not create parallels. Parallels is the company and the product not Mac. And while the majority is windows, the mac presence is growing. But they have fumbled many things with this release why should they do this part right and offer multiple options...
I stand corrected (unlike most, I can admit I was wrong).
My original argument is still the same however. Due to the fact that you can run Windows under most Macs it still makes more sense to concentrate on a Windows version especially since they already had a .NET/DirectX engine to work with. And I agree that its growing. And maybe they will revisit creating one, but I would very much not hold my breath on that.
I stand corrected (unlike most, I can admit I was wrong).
My original argument is still the same however. Due to the fact that you can run Windows under most Macs it still makes more sense to concentrate on a Windows version especially since they already had a .NET/DirectX engine to work with. And I agree that its growing. And maybe they will revisit creating one, but I would very much not hold my breath on that.
And HOW MANY people do you think run windows on a mac??? Yes I know there is the capability of it and for some people for work and whatnot they have no choice. Most things have alternatives in Macland so you don't have to run windows. It's amazing how you have all this knowledge...
And HOW MANY people do you think run windows on a mac??? Yes I know there is the capability of it and for some people for work and whatnot they have no choice. Most things have alternatives in Macland so you don't have to run windows. It's amazing how you have all this knowledge...
Well my personal experience is that many of the people I know who have macs either have pcs and a mac or have macs with Boot camp/parallels. However I work in IT, so most of the people I know who have that are IT people who know how to set that up and need it for whatever projects, so it may not be that way with the majority of the planet. However, arguing the point is useless as they are not making a mac client so your either stuck getting a PC, using Boot Camp or Parallels or not using the DDI tools.
Well my personal experience is that many of the people I know who have macs either have pcs and a mac or have macs with Boot camp/parallels. However I work in IT, so most of the people I know who have that are IT people who know how to set that up and need it for whatever projects, so it may not be that way with the majority of the planet. However, arguing the point is useless as they are not making a mac client so your either stuck getting a PC, using Boot Camp or Parallels or not using the DDI tools.
I don't like those choices. Just curious, if you don't have a Mac, why do you post on a Mac thread???
I don't like those choices. Just curious, if you don't have a Mac, why do you post on a Mac thread???
The OP was asking about a Mac OS X client. I don't recall a "only people with Macs sign" hanging out anywhere. I could argue that if you have a Mac, why are you posting in the D&D Insider forums as they don't have a Mac client. But I don't cause im not an ass. I actually encourage people to constructively tell WOTC that people do wish there was a Mac client. My only argument is getting completely upset to the point of be irrationality is not helpful, Two of the people I would possibly want to play with have Macs (they both have parallels but still). It would be nice to have something native. I just want people to be aware that there was a valid business decision. Now if they had made just a Mac client and no Windows client and Windows people were upset, they at least have the argument that Windows has much bigger market share.
I'm currently working on building a dragonborn in the Spore creature creator. When it's finished, I'll post it. My point is that, this program is being operated on a Macbook. The only setback is my dragonborn will be cartoony, naked, and I can't make any other race.. 'cept maybe thri-kreen.
- posting this from a Mac that I use for all my work, and that also runs WoW and PCGen.
And one again.. this was done on a Mac.. imagine if us non windows users were allowed to use the DDI tools..
The OP was asking about a Mac OS X client. I don't recall a "only people with Macs sign" hanging out anywhere. I could argue that if you have a Mac, why are you posting in the D&D Insider forums as they don't have a Mac client. But I don't cause im not an ass. I actually encourage people to constructively tell WOTC that people do wish there was a Mac client. My only argument is getting completely upset to the point of be irrationality is not helpful, Two of the people I would possibly want to play with have Macs (they both have parallels but still). It would be nice to have something native. I just want people to be aware that there was a valid business decision. Now if they had made just a Mac client and no Windows client and Windows people were upset, they at least have the argument that Windows has much bigger market share.
My comment about why post is because you haven't brought anything constructive to the table. Only that there isn't a Mac client, Mac doesn't have the market share, get over it. I see in the forums you talking about "haters", people aren't happy with the choices WotC have made. We aren't allowed to state our opinions of that? You don't seem to think so. And you HAVE basically said why post the point is moot there is no Mac client, so maybe you are the ass you talk about. Oh and your argument about parallels? (or VMware for that matter) there is the pricing issue as someone else stated and it isn't guaranteed to work all that well, it is 3d and could potentially be too graphics intensive for either virtual solution, we shall see. This is a valid business decision to you, but if you had only a mac and no VM I wonder if you would feel the same way. You have also said that you are glad they didn't make a mac client in the context that they would have to wipe out what they have already done, how do you know that?
My comment about why post is because you haven't brought anything constructive to the table. Only that there isn't a Mac client, Mac doesn't have the market share, get over it. I see in the forums you talking about "haters", people aren't happy with the choices WotC have made. We aren't allowed to state our opinions of that? You don't seem to think so. And you HAVE basically said why post the point is moot there is no Mac client, so maybe you are the ass you talk about. Oh and your argument about parallels? (or VMware for that matter) there is the pricing issue as someone else stated and it isn't guaranteed to work all that well, it is 3d and could potentially be too graphics intensive for either virtual solution, we shall see. This is a valid business decision to you, but if you had only a mac and no VM I wonder if you would feel the same way. You have also said that you are glad they didn't make a mac client in the context that they would have to wipe out what they have already done, how do you know that?
Im sick of people saying 4th edition sucks and DDI sucks because of one decision that doesn't affect the actual product, just ones perception on it. People are free to declare how they feel, but going around advertising other products or saying WOTC should be shot over and over again (and I am not saying you, but these are the haters I refer to in my post).
I have calmed down. I generally am not responding any more to arguments and the only reason I am responding to this is your specific response to me. And your right, vmware/parallels has a cost as does Windows needed to put on those. Didn't say it was the same as regular Windows users. Mac users would have to spend more and that sucks.
As far as wiping everything out, one that was a possible scenario and two because the engine they are using was a preexisting engine (not sure from what but doesn't really matter) that was written in DirectX and .NET which means they would have either had to create a seperate parallel product (which makes no real sense) or to just not use the existing engine they had. The "wiping everything out" thing came from the POSSIBLE scenario when they thought up DDI that either they can use this existing engine and be stuck Windows only OR that they not work on a DDI product at all. My response was (and it is selfish I admit, but I suspect most people will feel like this if they had Windows) that I would rather them see a Windows only client than a non existent. Again this is one possible scenario. Regardless of that, it would have cost WOTC more money to create a mac client. The question really becomes would that cost been justified. With a look back, the likely hood is more so yes.
As I stated in the other Mac thread in the Technical section I am biased against pure Mac as I work with Windows exclusively, most of the people I know (since im in the IT industry) that have Macs have parallels/vmware. I admit that my perception is not indicative of the entire market.
That being said, I do not feel the need to respond any further on the mac issue. My hopes is that perhaps they make a Mac client at some point, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
As much as I would love to see DDI up on my iMac's cinema display, there are valid reasons to believe that it won't happen, or at least not without the use of Windows software. I'm not very optimistic either, and trust me, it's not because I'm biased against Macs. I love them. Part of the reason why I love them is their undeniable social cache, but as such, they are also a niche product. I happen to really appreciate the niche they fill, but the majority of the market doesn't, or at least doesn't enough to pay for one. The market share is growing, and that's awesome, but it's still a niche. D&D is niche too. It already has a limited market. So DDI for the Mac would be targeted to a demographic represented by the narrow convergence of two niche markets. That's a hard thing to pitch at the suits.
As a Mac-head, I really don't see anything problematic with anything Gizmo has said. I don't see any reason to get on his case. As much as it might drive us crazy sometimes, these decisions are based on financial concerns, and there is no question that dual-system programming is very expensive and time consuming, and that the PC market offers a much larger consumer base than the Mac market. Gizmo's just the messenger here. No need to shoot him.
As much as I would love to see DDI up on my iMac's cinema display, there are valid reasons to believe that it won't happen, or at least not without the use of Windows software. I'm not very optimistic either, and trust me, it's not because I'm biased against Macs. I love them. Part of the reason why I love them is their undeniable social cache, but as such, they are also a niche product. I happen to really appreciate the niche they fill, but the majority of the market doesn't, or at least doesn't enough to pay for one. The market share is growing, and that's awesome, but it's still a niche. D&D is niche too. It already has a limited market. So DDI for the Mac would be targeted to a demographic represented by the narrow convergence of two niche markets. That's a hard thing to pitch at the suits.
Thanks
Finally someone who gets what im saying. btw for those who do have subs to this thread, the compendium is up and is Web based, so at least Mac people can use that.
As a Mac-head, I really don't see anything problematic with anything Gizmo has said. I don't see any reason to get on his case. As much as it might drive us crazy sometimes, these decisions are based on financial concerns, and there is no question that dual-system programming is very expensive and time consuming, and that the PC market offers a much larger consumer base than the Mac market. Gizmo's just the messenger here. No need to shoot him.
If you decide to be multi-platform from the start, then the overhead is not that big, where the real pain lies, is if you develop for one platform and then try to port.