| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1Vengeful_DeityAug 22, 2008 16:51:39 | I've been very excited about the concept of a virtual table top as has been described and previewed since it's initial announcement, but today I discovered by accident that the current pricing model included micro purchases of vMinis. Additionally, upon seeing the bonus tools and previews of other applications, I am now very concerned about the product. There are so many questions and frustrations I'm having right now about this, that I'm having trouble expressing myself. I don't know what to do except be frank. 1) You're offering online Magazines. Cool, charge for that. I'll buy it. 2) You're offering small bonus tools and rolling it into the Magazine subscription Awesome...except. Well, you've ingeniously rolled some of them that should probably be free too...so if I cancel my subscription I lose those too. Not cool. But okay...whatever. I'd pay the sub just for the magazines. 3) You're offering full software packages for a monthly subscription including networking tools and access to servers so I can play with other people. Freaking awesome! Except that some of the tools, particularly the Visualizer and Hero Builder are unaccessable if I cancel my sub even though they're require minimal updates and are entirely useable apart from the game table. Not cool. But...whatever. I'd pay to use the networking tools and server access, but I'd like to be able to use the other tools when I'm not online. 4) The virtual table top is entirely built around virtual dungeons populated by virtual minis...that...I. Have to pay for? Again? Seriously? I understand the model. I-tunes. Got it....but you don't have to pay monthly to be able to use I-tunes. And you can take your I-tunes songs and put them on your I-pod. You have them on your computer. You have them indefinately. But with your model, if I cancel my subscription. The mini's that I purchased become unusable. You're making me rent what I've already paid for. Not cool. If this is your pricing model, I won't pay for it. I'd likely pay for the web content only, but I'm not going to pay to use the table top only to use ugly token peices. Its completely against the purpose of having a virtual table top. And I'm not going to pay monthly for something that I've already purchased. |
| #2asmodeusloreAug 24, 2008 12:36:59 | I doubt I'll be buying any v-minis myself, because of how this whole thing is working out. My current plans are to keep the magazine subscription, and try out the extra stuff as it comes out. If it has enough quality to justify the subscription, I'll sign up for it, but even then, I can't see myself buying any v-minis under the idea of paying seperately for each instance. |
| #3jestertorisAug 24, 2008 14:20:04 | I Very Much agree. I can't believe you have to pay for the Mini's and Tiles. Character Visualizer.. okay you use it for one character that you'll be running for a year. Character Creater.. you use it once and a while to print new cards and update yourself when you level. (People have been doing that easily enough with pen and paper for 20 years) The Magazines, fine interesting content, nice to enjoy. I was thrilled! to try out this Table Top version with my large TV. I like what Wizard does to revitalize the game, but I've already bought a ton of tiles and mini's from them. The entire point of a subscription is to .. get something.. for what you continue to pay for. I was thrilled.. now I am just rolling my eyes. I may.. May.. purchase it for a month, to allow the 8-12 people I play with to print up character sheets and print up visuals, but that is all any of us will do. |
| #4hdierAug 25, 2008 10:30:44 | Except that some of the tools, particularly the Visualizer and Hero Builder are unaccessable if I cancel my sub even though they're require minimal updates and are entirely useable apart from the game table. Not cool. Well, yeah...I'm pretty sure that you can save your characters to your computer (please, someone correct me if I'm wrong), so you'd still be able to use them, you just wouldn't be able to update them with the Character Builder. However, because the sheets are the standard sheets that you can get online, you can manually edit them. You just don't get the bells and whistles and convenance because you're not paying anymore. However, I agree that there should not be micro-transaction AND a subscription fee...one or the other, not both. Thanks, Hdier |
| #5WolfStar76Aug 25, 2008 11:59:08 | Well, yeah...I'm pretty sure that you can save your characters to your computer (please, someone correct me if I'm wrong), so you'd still be able to use them, you just wouldn't be able to update them with the Character Builder. However, because the sheets are the standard sheets that you can get online, you can manually edit them. You just don't get the bells and whistles and convenance because you're not paying anymore. I'm fairly certain that the data you save is the data needed by the character generator. IE - not just the sheet, but the raw data that represents your selections. So, when you level, get a shiny new sword, retrain a feat, etc - you just load the character data, adjust, and save again - printing out a new copy if needed. Saving the sheet and only the sheet may be an option as well (print to PDF for example). WotC_DM may be able to confirm/deny that if this thread catches his eye. *waves giant orange flags* [EDIT] Oh, and yes - you can save files to your computer. The "Character Vault" option is currently on hold. |
| #6EugeeAug 27, 2008 17:00:47 | If they don't provide the vMinis and tiles with the subscription costs, and continue this stupid notion of charging us for something that we're already paying a subscription to use, then I'm going to devote a significant portion of my time to making sure every single person out there interested in using VTT software visits is aware of the better options that exist right now, and will not have this horrid nickel-n-dime routine built into their pricing model. If $15 a month gets me free 2D tokens, shove it. |
| #7wotc_dmAug 29, 2008 3:12:59 | I'm fairly certain that the data you save is the data needed by the character generator. IE - not just the sheet, but the raw data that represents your selections. Saw the orange flags... The local save file from the character builder is not just the character sheet but the whole character data. It will also keep track of all previous levels, so if you are level 10, and you want to check out how your character was at level 3 you can do that anytime with the application. The character sheet can be printed. We do not plan to offer a "save as PDF" for launch, but there are tools out there where you can already print to a PDF. This said, we know this is a feature that is interesting to the community, and it is in our backlog of things to look into. |
| #8asmodeusloreAug 29, 2008 8:38:18 | The local save file... Can you tell me more about this? What format is it? XML? |
| #9kodiak3dAug 29, 2008 9:10:01 | Greed is apparently becoming a driving force at WotC. I remember the old days of TSR and even before Hasbro acquired WotC when the quality of their products and the joy of their consumers was goal #1. That's not to say that the developers themselves are greedy, just the bean counters at Hasbro driving them. Why do you think the PHB 2 was announced practically as soon as PHB 1 hit the shelves? "Sorry, we left a few classes and races out, but here they are! Buy another $40 book!" As I understand it, $15/month is still the expected price for the full suite. That's the same price as nearly every MMORPG on the market (DnD Online included). Unlike an MMO, however, I doubt that I'll get daily use out of DDI, especially for several hours a day. Also, in DnD Online, I don't have to decide if I want 2D pictures of the creatures attacking me or pay to have 3D models of them. Simply put, WotC needs to get over the greed a little. I understand they are in this to make money, but they will make MORE money by making the V-minis free becasue they will get MORE subscriptions. Monthly subscriptions are a goldmine. At $15 a month, even 10,000 subscriptions makes a good deal of money. Wake up, WotC. Stop being foolish about this, and stop trying to bleed your consumers for every red cent we have. |
| #10Vengeful_DeitySep 02, 2008 12:43:12 | I mean I think I understand where they think they are justified, they think the vMini's are a product all of their own, and they want to recoup some of the pocketbook stigma from the development. What they SHOULD do is sell the software like normal companies do. Charge us $30 or $50 or however much for the entire bundle. Dungeon Mapper, Visualiser, Builder, Encounter Builder, Game Table (though unusable on their network, still viable for homegames) None of these subscription only web tools that anyone with excel and half a brain can build. And then charge us the subscription fee for the additional content including magazines, new minis, and compendium updates. I don't think anyone would argue with that buisness model. |
| #11ScottomirSep 05, 2008 19:27:34 | THE MARKET WILL DECIDE... I think it would help everyone maintain their sanity over D&DI if we keep the above in mind. No matter how upset some folks get, no matter how zealously other folks defend WotC with their every breath, no matter how greedy Hasbro wants to be, the market will decide the fate of D&DI. From a dispassionate analysis, the announced D&DI pricing structure is expensive for what it offers. It would be almost unimaginable that D&DI could provide as many "contact hours" of use as an MMORPG, yet that's how it is being priced. Additionally, the v-mini are being conceived like a physical product (real minis or MAGIC cards), except (as others have passionately pointed out) the "owner" really is only renting the cyber/digital objects (and must, as I understand it, purchase multiple iterations of said cyber objects). WotC is quite simply attempting to convince its customers to buy a particular service using a pricing model from a superficially similar but in actuality quite different service (MMORPGs). But this above dispassionate analysis isn't worth squat. All that matters is what the market decides. There is a possibility that so many people are so hungry for a large, active online community of D&D players that a sufficient market is out there to pay $15/month. On the other hand, there is a possibility that there are not enough players out there willing to pay $15/month to sustain the business model. In which case, WotC's pricing model will change quick as boiled asparagas! If it comes down to bilking a few thousand people out of $15/month + v-minis and attracting tens of thousands of people willing to $10/month including v-minis, I highly doubt WotC will die on the hill to defend the original pricing model. So I decline to get worked up about the D&DI pricing model anymore until the free market renders its verdict. Especially since it looks like we have a LOOOONG wait until that market will get a crack at the full D&DI! ;) |
| #12isheSep 06, 2008 0:41:21 | You're right, the market will decide. I'm not worked up about it, but I have already decided. I played Magic Online and I've played several MMOs. I haven't had a problem paying any of the fees. I didn't have a problem with Magic Online, because I was purchasing the cards - I could order them to be shipped physically to me. The reason I didn't have a problem with the MMO costs was because I got many hours of enjoyment out of them and comparable entertainment services would cost as much or more. If the game table comes out with a subscription + pay for v-minis, I won't subscribe. If it followed the Magic Online model and had initial fee ($30-$50) + v-mini purchases, I would probably buy (depends how much those v-mini purchases were), provided that I could have them ship the v-minis to me in physical form for a shipping fee. If it folled the MMO model and had the subscription fee (@ $!5) + free v-minis, I would subscribe. I know others that I am fairly certain that this is the case for. |
| #13asmodeusloreSep 06, 2008 13:21:54 | Additionally, the v-mini are being conceived like a physical product (real minis or MAGIC cards), except (as others have passionately pointed out) the "owner" really is only renting the cyber/digital objects (and must, as I understand it, purchase multiple iterations of said cyber objects). Just FYI, the most recent news article for DDI announced that v-minis will no longer be a microtransaction process. You'll be able to use any of them, as much as you want. The caveat was that specific minis with pre-build adventure packs will still require you to pay for the adventure pack. Of course, nothing is set in stone, but thats the word so far. |
| #14ScottomirSep 07, 2008 20:42:49 | Just FYI, the most recent news article for DDI announced that v-minis will no longer be a microtransaction process. You'll be able to use any of them, as much as you want. The caveat was that specific minis with pre-build adventure packs will still require you to pay for the adventure pack. Of course, nothing is set in stone, but thats the word so far. Ah thanks, I just saw this myself today. Perhaps the voice of the market can indeed speak earlier and more persuasively than I guessed! |
| #15BW0222Sep 09, 2008 9:28:47 | Vengeful_Deity, 4) The virtual table top is entirely built around virtual dungeons populated by virtual minis...that...I. Have to pay for? Says who? Do you have any evidence that the VTT experience will require, have, or otherwise want to use v-mini's rather than tokens. That is certainly not true for the real world game. How many times have people walked out of the real game screaming if the DM doesn't have the right figure, they quit and want their gas money back? a) Most people simply don't have real world figs to run even a handful of combats with actual figures. I don't see this changing in the VTT world. Even if WoW made the v-minis free (and raised everyones costs to cover development) I'm willing to bet, as in real life, in 90% of combats folks wouldn't have a full set of figs anyway. b) Many people prefer to use tokens (dice, etc.) to since they are more plentiful, don't block views, don't get knocked over, and are easier to label (i.e. color and number), don't waste time looking for figs out of a collection of hundreds, etc. I know many DMs who conciously use tokens rather than figs even if the fig is available. I see no reason why the VTT would be any different. AFAIK, most folks might be perfectly happy playing with tokens -- the same as they are in real life. Certainly, if the VTT has the same issue as numbering v-minis, producing tens of thousands of them needed to cover even the most basic of modules, cataloging and sorting, blocking views, etc. then I can't see why using tokens is any great hardship (let alone a desired method of play) -- same as in the real game. |
| #16kyros_tachyusSep 09, 2008 10:24:55 | Says who? Do you have any evidence that the VTT experience will require, have, or otherwise want to use v-mini's rather than tokens. This is not the real world. This is a computer game now. If the computer game isn't good enough or offers acceptable graphics. It goes no where. We want to buy this game, but not if they're going to nickel and dime us for the graphics... THANKFULLY... :D They have said they won't. They're going to offer v-minis for free and offer unlimited copies of each from what I've seen here on the forums. |
| #17BW0222Sep 09, 2008 20:26:55 | Kyros_Tachyus, This is not the real world. This is a computer game now. Really? You mean you don't need other players to play? You mean it isn't run by a human DM? You mean that the monsters move themselves, attack, answer your questions for you, etc.? Nonsense. It isn't a computer game. It is a real world game being run over the internet. I've played such games before using a telephone and conferencing software. It isn't NWN, it isn't BG, it isn't D&DOL. Anyone expecting a video game will drop it after ten seconds. It isn't a computer game, any more than teleconferencing software, a web-cam, or a telephone is a computer game. It plays like the real world game because it is the real world game, just using a telephone (or VOIP) to talk and conferencing software (or VTT software) to see the battlemap. If the computer game isn't good enough or offers acceptable graphics. It goes no where. Again, says who? WotC is likely expecting the same numbers as MtGOL - a few hundred thousand or so out of 4.5 million active D&D players. You appear to thus know exactly what 4.3+ million people do and don't want in a VTT, even before they have played it. If so, you should consider a job in market research. We want to buy this game, but not if they're going to nickel and dime us for the graphics... Who is "we" and "us"? You and who else? I love people who pretend to speak for everyone else. You use "we" and "us" as if you carry some authority of numbers. You speak for yourself and some unknown number of other people who haven't even seen or tried the product out and certainly reserve the right to change their minds after trying it. You have no idea if any significant number of people really cares about the graphics. You have no idea if any significiant number of others really cares about v-minis vs. tokens. I don't know either, but then again a) I don't claim that "we" will buy D&DI even with no graphics or tokens only; and b) I know that market for D&DI comes from the core gamers who I do know happily run games without fancy graphics and often tokens only. I see no reason why it should be different online, just because you say so. |
| #18nexusvalheesSep 09, 2008 21:19:09 | Kyros_Tachyus, 1.) This is a computer game A Game B I play on my computer If the graphics didn't come with the package I wouldn't pay for it many others wouldn't as well 2.) How many people would be on MTGOL if there weren't pretty pictures on the cards. I'd wager a lot less. 3.) There is no reason for people not to want to play without V minis asides from wizards trying to get money for graphics you are already paying for. Your not going to accidentally knock them over they won't get in the way. and I doubt they will be any harder to locate than tokens. 4.) Obviously wizards feels your wrong or they would have gone along with the Idiotic Idea of charging for graphics. |
| #19BW0222Sep 09, 2008 22:45:36 | nexusvalhees,1.) This is a computer game A Game B I play on my computer Is video conferencing a computer game just because I play it on my computer? Wow. So, if I use video conferencing software to play D&D with friends, then WebEx or GotoMeeting suddenly a "computer game"? If I put a web-cam above the battlemap does that make it a "computer game"? Nonsense. Each is merely a way to allow players to see the battlemap. Any VTT is already a massive improvement over real life -- pens running out of ink, running out of space on the battlemap, not able to see angles because you can't move around the table, able to label figs rather than remembering which type of creature "Red 2" is, etc. I see no reason that it has to reach some arbitrary level of graphics of say NWN, BG, etc. for it to be useful for what is it simulating. 2.) How many people would be on MTGOL if there weren't pretty pictures on the cards. I'd wager a lot less. Except real world MtG players won't play the real world game without pretty pictures (since they are paying for them as collector items). The problem is, real world D&D players routinely play D&D without pretty figs. They play on cheesy hand drawn battlemaps, with unpainted figs, dice, or coins. They don't walk away from real world games if the DM don't have a fig for every monster. So I see no reason why MtGOL rules for art work would apply to D&DI when non-online MtG art work requirements don't apply to non-online D&D. 3.) There is no reason for people not to want to play without V minis asides from wizards trying to get money for graphics you are already paying for. Your not going to accidentally knock them over they won't get in the way. and I doubt they will be any harder to locate than tokens. Sorry, a large fig quickly blocks the view of the table. I see no reason why it wouldn't block the view in a 3d VTT? Having to move around the table to see where X fig is, determining LOS, or cover, etc. is certainly more difficult with a big troll blocking the view to ten squares. I don't know how many times I replace a large fig with a dice lid so I can see the battlemap. There are lots of reasons to not use figs - even if you have them. I see no reason why experiences in the real world wouldn't apply to the VTT. In any case, whether folks want to play with v-minis is irrelavent. As in real life, folks simply won't have enough v-minis to cover all the monsters, NPCs, etc. in a typical module. You won't find a half-dozen kobold variations, a rock lizard with a saddle, etc. You'll have to make do with any random fig, or ... use tokens. I see no reason why folks (used to doing so in real D&D) will suddenly refuse to play the VTT just because you need a token saying "Lizard with Saddle". I can't see why there would be some magical percentage at which the game suddenly becomes totally unplayable just because 10%, 25%, 50%, or 75% of encounters don't have figs. Based on how fast WotC likely can produce these things... I'm sure for years, most encounters will be run using tokens. 4.) Obviously wizards feels your wrong or they would have gone along with the Idiotic Idea of charging for graphics. That isn't obvious at all. That would assume that the only possible reason for including v-minis in the pricing is that no one will buy D&DI unless they are free? Even an idiot could come up with a half dozen other possible reasons. Maybe they think I'm absolutely right. Maybe through play testing, they realized that 90% of folks are absolutely fine with tokens once they see them. The reason for including them is that the 10% can't absorb the cost and it is better to roll the development cost into the subscription price? Maybe they are worried that by charging for v-minis, that everyone will use tokens and quickly realize that they don't need v-minis? Maybe they are concerned that with the slow rate of v-minis that folks are going to be upset at not being able to buy those they want - and having to use tokens anyway? Maybe the v-minis really stink. Perhaps play testing has shown they don't really improve the game much. Maybe they are worried that by charging for them folks will expect a much better play and will be upset. Maybe they are giving them away free so that folks paying for something don't realize how unnecessary it is? Maybe they are just having problems with trying to license the darn things. Maybe someone said they could save a couple of months development time if they didn't have to worry about tracking licenses for each individual v-mini, online stores, etc.? Maybe some been counter figured out the number of support calls, credit card disputes, etc. arrising from $0.75 micro-transactions and figured that it isn't worth it? Maybe they did the numbers of folks likely to subscribe over each year and figured that the intitial numbers weren't going to cover the v-mini development costs anyway? It is in no way obvious that their reason for including v-minis was based on whether folks would or wouldn't play D&DI if they had to pay separatey for v-minis. |
| #20john_paul_stoddardSep 10, 2008 0:21:51 | Can you play Pen and Paper D&D without a Computer Yes Can you create a Pen and Paper Character without a Computer Yes Can you play D&D with Friends without a Computer Yes Can you Play Pen and Paper D&D without Miniatures and Maps Yes Can you create Maps without a Computer Yes Can you play using the Tabletop Application without a Computer. NO Can you Create a Character using DDInsider Character Gen without a Computer NO Can you Play with Friends worldwide without a computer.. possibly..but not instantaneously. |
| #21Vengeful_DeitySep 10, 2008 12:25:55 | Vengeful_Deity, Why are you defending a bad buisness model? It was so bad, in fact, that they changed their minds on it. The truth of the matter is, when you make the jump to a computer application certain things are expected. 1) No bugs 2) Intuitive User Interface 3) Adequate Representation of Displayed Information The third one might not be as intuitive as you may hope. But it is the reason that people moved to using grids and minis in the first place. It is the reason that graphics keep improving in video games, and why...if you try to go back and play an older video game it is harder to get into than a newer one with better graphics. The v-minis will add a very special dimension to the game table, because we'll have adequate representation of what is going on in the game. Only being able to using them occasionally because someone bothered to pay for them will highlight when you don't have them and, to me, will break my suspension of belief and make the whole package less appealing. |
| #22BW0222Sep 10, 2008 16:22:45 | Vengeful_Deity,Why are you defending a bad buisness model? I'm not. I'm merely stating the possiblity that v-minis are not necessary for the use or enjoyment of VTTs and specifically D&DI. I can do so without thinking that their v-mini pricing is a good (or bad) business model. It was so bad, in fact, that they changed their minds on it. Or they changed it for a half dozen other possible reasons which I easily came up with, or other reasons we have no idea of? The truth of the matter is, I love how you just declare some which is obviously your opinion to be "truth" or "fact". Do you have a link to a software engineering study, school, or report where this list of three items came from? If it is accepted as truth, then presumably the industry in general accepts it? How about just one school? One engineering standard? I'll save you the time. The only thing we can accept as truth here, is that you just made up that list. It isn't recognized as truth by anyone in the industry. It is complete nonsense. You can put "Truth", "Fact", "Obvious", etc. in front of your options until you are blue in the face, and I'm still going to see them for what they are... opinions. The fact you try stating that what are clearly personal opinions are truth... makes it easy to conclude that your opinions are based of anything but facts. And do you have any evidence that tokens (which people already use in the real world) are not sufficient for "adequate representation" of a situation in D&DI? A report, a study, surveys of other VTTs which use tokens, etc.? I still see no evidence that the VTT will require any more level of "suspention of disbelief" than the normal game. Finally, your entire arguement can be easily dismissed if one just continues to apply to its next logical step. You say folks won't buy a VTT without 3d graphics and they will buy it with 3d v-minis? Why did you stop there? Couldn't you have just make the arguement that they wouldn't buy a VTT without animation, weapon effects, sounds, visual spell effects, equipment changing, etc.? Ultimately, any opinion you have on what is good enough, is meaningless to me. None of us have tried the system and we have no idea whether tokens are good enough. Your opinion can't be based on the actual VTT. The only thing we know as truth, is that tokens are good enough for the table top game. |
| #23kyros_tachyusSep 10, 2008 19:42:27 | BW0222 I love how you use the phrase "I love how people use..." to try and disregard whatever they're saying. Complete dismissal always works doesn't it? You are defending a bad business model. Simple. The idea behind the VTT that made it so much better than FG2 was 3d minis. I say "We" and "Us" because I am on here a lot of the time, and I know that there are many who share these opinions. It IS a computer game now. It is not like the Kitchen Table we all know. We WERE going to have to pay for the graphics that have always been presented with the product until recently. NOW we DON'T have to. And our ideas "can easily be dismissed" because you refuse to speak with us about it. All you're doing is refusing to acknowledge that our points are valid, and really nothing else. You give no examples of your own. You've said that anything we have to say is meaningless so why bother coming here? Why bother listening to guys like Asmodeus_Lore, Kentinal, and WolfStar76 as well? They have opinions (omg such a dirty word... i know) too about the issues. But I guess they are all invalid too... |
| #24BW0222Sep 10, 2008 22:46:54 | Kyros_Tachyus,I love how you use the phrase "I love how people use..." to try and disregard whatever they're saying. Complete dismissal always works doesn't it? Yes, once people start claiming that their opinions are facts or truths, then they aren't debating ideas honestly and one can disregard them. Truth claims are not permitted in honest debates unless backed up by direct evidence. You are defending a bad business model. Simple. Again, I have never said charging for v-minis was a good (or bad) business model. I merely said that perhaps v-minis aren't that important to the VTT. That fact that I said this has no bearing on whether I feel it is (or isn't) a good idea for WotC to charge for v-minis. The idea behind the VTT that made it so much better than FG2 was 3d minis. Or it was the marshalling system? Or WotCs marketting? Or 4e's release? Or a hosted system? Or built-in VOIP? Or integrated tools? Or having WotC providing modules? Or WotC putting their RPGA muscle behind it? Or the promise of a large enough community for a 'play now' option? I don't know whether 3d minis makes it that much better such that folks wouldn't buy it without the v-minis. But, I do know that you don't know either - since until large numbers of folks actually try the system, you can't possibly know whether they would play it without the v-minis anyway. I also do know that folks routinely play the real game without fancy minis. I see no reason why going to a VTT would suddenly require any greater level in graphics quality? If someone can prove that VTT are somehow lead to different requirements, I'd certainly look at any report, study, or play test results they have. And then I'd love to know why they think that it stops at 3d v-minis, rather than full animation, spell effects, weapon switching, etc. I say "We" and "Us" because I am on here a lot of the time, and I know that there are many who share these opinions. I'm perfectly willing to accept "we" and "us" when used in a general sense or when refering to a specific group. However, your statements are coming across as authority arguments. I don't mind if you want to say, "I think a lot of folks won't like that...", but when you appear to claim to speak for a large number of people, you then open yourself to the obvious question, who is "we"? It IS a computer game now. It is not like the Kitchen Table we all know. Sorry, but this is clearly another opinion cloaked as fact. Capitalizing "IS" doesn't make your opinion true. IMO, it is more akin to conferencing software - say GotoMeeting or WebEx. It is just designed specifically to host a specific type of meeting. I don't think of it as a game but as a means of hosting a game. Others may agree, disagree, or see it as somethng else. However, it is by no means a fact that it is a computer game. And how can you possible conclude that it isn't like the kitchen table? No one can possibly know that as the product hasn't even been released. And our ideas "can easily be dismissed" because you refuse to speak with us about it. All you're doing is refusing to acknowledge that our points are valid, and really nothing else. You give no examples of your own. I don't need to speak or discuss with you. a) You made a statement of fact --"The virtual table top is entirely built around virtual dungeons populated by virtual minis". b) I challenged you for direct evidence of that fact -- "Do you have any evidence that the VTT experience will require, have, or otherwise want to use v-mini's rather than tokens?" c) You failed to provide any, let alone something which would rise to the level of showing it as a truth. There is nothing further to discuss. In any honest debate failure to provide direct proof of a statement of fact is an automatical forefit. I don't mind if you came back with "Sorry, IMO, the virtual table top...". However, as long as you make absolute statements of fact without direct proof, you've taken yourself out any honest debate. You've said that anything we have to say is meaningless so why bother coming here? Why bother listening to guys like Asmodeus_Lore, Kentinal, and WolfStar76 as well? They have opinions (omg such a dirty word... i know) too about the issues. But I guess they are all invalid too... I have no problems with these posters. To my knowledge, I haven't seen any cloak opinions as truth or fact, nor do they hint at authority arguments. Asmodeus_Lore clearly says "I" in his post and leaves it at that. However, your suggestion itself is rather telling. IMO, it's a rather lame attempt to get others rally to your 'side' by suggesting that I did (or would) not value or respect their opinions -- just because I don't value certain 'fact' and 'truth' claims which you and Vengeful_Deity are making. I'm sorry if you still don't understand the difference between a statement of fact and an opinion, and why one is quickly dismissed when direct evidence is not provided. |
| #25KentinalSep 10, 2008 23:31:16 | Wow deified in one thread with Wolf and now this discussion. Oh I clearly have opinions and have expressed them. I also is some ways answers questions based on my understanding of official statements, I even have an error rate that I wish was lower. This thread in some ways appears to be a difference of opinion on how to discuss a topic. It is no longer discussing the topic, just the way users have discussed the topic. Clearly in some ways Game Table is a computer game, an interactive one that limits (unless plans change) to 16 (this might have been cut, but a DM and 15 players is a hard task for most DMs so if seats drop a few I would not worry about it) people at a time. Vminis were never required and still are not required, they might just decorate the game table better if the DM decides to use 3D tiles it clearly would look strange to in effect move a checker among chess pieces and get a balanced view of it. Odds are some DMs will not use 3d at all, depending on player comfort and others will use every 3d they can get their hands on. There are different styles of play at the table and on the web. Some want sound and some do not care about it and so on. There are some facts out there and a lot of guesses about what will happen. Some guesses do stand a better chance of being correct then others, however a guess is not a fact. |
| #26kyros_tachyusSep 11, 2008 0:51:21 | I had what was an extrememly long winded post prepared to further argue with BW0222 but Gleemax "ate it". However, I've had a change of heart after re-reading the posts by BW0222. So now, I refuse to argue with BW0222. His unwillingness to actually discuss the issue does nothing for this thread and the topic(s) herein. I see only attacks on how things are presented and nothing else. There has been little to no debate on his part with the issues at hand and only attempts at immediate dismissal of opinions and general observations. Therefore, I don't think theres anything else to really discuss in this thread. Especially since we got the message across already (it would seem) and the v-mini situation has changed. |