Another App that's not for Mac! Thanks!

54 posts / 0 new
Last post
I know that Mac users are, at best, a niche market. However, as per the character builder, there are TONS of ways to make a platform agnostic application. You've had a year since the Character Builder, and, once again, WOTC chooses to make a platform specific application.

I buy D&D Insider despite not being able to run CB on my Mac (natively). I use it at a player's house once a week (at most). Now, here's another application that Windows users get, that I also pay for.

Thanks for continuing to make the subscription markedly less useful for Mac users than Windows users. An entire year of development, and there was no push whatsoever on making the new application available to Macs, or Linux, etc?

Is the development cost for using platform agnostic tools really SO immense that the added sales potential from Mac and Linux users is irrelevant? Does every Mac and Linux user need to stop supporting WOTC with their money to be seen as important?

I love D&D. I love Dragon and Dungeon. I like the Character Builder, and, once I install the Monster Builder I'll probably like it too. However, I'd PAY EXTRA to be able to use these on my home machine without buying a version of Windows I have no intention of using for any other purpose. I'd much rather give WOTC the money than Microsoft. If you'd make a platform neutral version, I'd pay more for it. As it is, I'm going to be giving SOMEONE else money that I'd prefer to give to you.

Also, at some point, the added value of CB and MB will factor into some people's purchasing decisions. If they can't use those applications, then the value of a D&D Insider subscription goes way down to them. You've had a full year to avoid that situation with Monster Builder, and you did it exactly the same way again.

If I didn't really, really, really enjoy playing and running D&D, I would literally quit playing this game, sell the stuff, return most of the product I ordered for my book store, and stop promoting the game to customers. Any other game system would have lost my loyalty by now. D&D is just severely testing it.
It's not like they haven't stated that Mac (and Linux) support is something that will come along down the road. They are not a software company, considering how long it takes them to produce an app for just PC. It is something that must be endured, because it's not likely to change soon.

Bel
Originally Posted by WotC_RichBaker In related news, I'm afraid I'm going to have to confiscate your 3.5 rulebooks, and force you to convert to the new edition. Where do you live?
I know that Mac users are, at best, a niche market. However, as per the character builder, there are TONS of ways to make a platform agnostic application. You've had a year since the Character Builder, and, once again, WOTC chooses to make a platform specific application.

I buy D&D Insider despite not being able to run CB on my Mac (natively). I use it at a player's house once a week (at most). Now, here's another application that Windows users get, that I also pay for.

Thanks for continuing to make the subscription markedly less useful for Mac users than Windows users. An entire year of development, and there was no push whatsoever on making the new application available to Macs, or Linux, etc?

Is the development cost for using platform agnostic tools really SO immense that the added sales potential from Mac and Linux users is irrelevant? Does every Mac and Linux user need to stop supporting WOTC with their money to be seen as important?

I love D&D. I love Dragon and Dungeon. I like the Character Builder, and, once I install the Monster Builder I'll probably like it too. However, I'd PAY EXTRA to be able to use these on my home machine without buying a version of Windows I have no intention of using for any other purpose. I'd much rather give WOTC the money than Microsoft. If you'd make a platform neutral version, I'd pay more for it. As it is, I'm going to be giving SOMEONE else money that I'd prefer to give to you.

Also, at some point, the added value of CB and MB will factor into some people's purchasing decisions. If they can't use those applications, then the value of a D&D Insider subscription goes way down to them. You've had a full year to avoid that situation with Monster Builder, and you did it exactly the same way again.

If I didn't really, really, really enjoy playing and running D&D, I would literally quit playing this game, sell the stuff, return most of the product I ordered for my book store, and stop promoting the game to customers. Any other game system would have lost my loyalty by now. D&D is just severely testing it.

I however would not like to pay more to support development costs for making the software work on a Mac or linux.

I sort of get your frustration but not sure why your choice of computer should impact my wallet. Aren't there ways of running emulators or dual booting so you can run it on the Mac? Surely a little bit of inconvenience to a 'few' is much better than uping the cost to everyone.
You chose to use a Mac, and you chose to get the sub knowing what platform the material is made for. Mac is more than a niche market in D&D, I would probably say it is nearly non-existant since most D&D players are other types of gamers (video gamers) and those gamers don't use Mac.

So, please don't raise my cost of it because of an extremely small group of people are whining.
On the contrary, Mac's are not a niche market any longer. With over 10% market share across the entire market (including business users), 50%+ in the university student population, and >50% penetration in the premium laptop market, Mac's are mainstream.

Your point about gamers being on windows isn't necessarily true either - the true hard core ones I know run Linux.

That being said, I just run it inside a Windows Virtual machine. It'd be nice to have a native application, but from a business standpoint, I can understand why it's not a priority.

What I don't understand is why they *chose* to build on a windows-only technology platform. As the OP said, there's many ways to build an OS independent program that would have been a better choice.

And on another note, it's not all that good a windows app - crashes on me all the time.
Might as well get used to it since it's the way it is and probably the way it's going to stay. There's plenty of valid workarounds floating around suggested by mac users around here just use one. They've only got a couple developers and those developers are already working in .net which is PC only. Don't expect them to pay those developers to completely remake the apps for your niche, it's not really a viable business choice. This isn't going to change, coming back and whining about it when each component comes out won't make it any better.
It has yet to crash on me. Something wrong with your system. Gamers run Linux because it is more stable then windows but even then those gamers run an emulator. Hard core gamers will either always run windows or have an emulator for windows. I would like to see your stats for universities, I have been at 2 and most do NOT have a mac.
On the contrary, Mac's are not a niche market any longer. With over 10% market share across the entire market (including business users), 50%+ in the university student population, and >50% penetration in the premium laptop market, Mac's are mainstream.

10% is still niche, a bigger niche than before but still a niche.

Your point about gamers being on windows isn't necessarily true either - the true hard core ones I know run Linux.

None of the truely hardcore gamers I have ever known (including myself) have ever run Linux primarily. Many of them may use linux for other applications, but gaming on a PC is and always will be predominantly Windows.

That being said, I just run it inside a Windows Virtual machine. It'd be nice to have a native application, but from a business standpoint, I can understand why it's not a priority.

What I don't understand is why they *chose* to build on a windows-only technology platform. As the OP said, there's many ways to build an OS independent program that would have been a better choice.

.net is a pretty appealing platform, especially for creating this sort of application with a small team. It's also likely that Hasbro/Wizards has Visual Studio .net licensed already and that the programmers already had experience with C# and VB.net.


And on another note, it's not all that good a windows app - crashes on me all the time.

That's why there's that big BETA thing on it you know.
Buy a cheap PC. Hell, you could prolly run it on one of those new dell mini-notebooks.
I'm just going to warn you, the infrastructure of the DDi applications means that they cannot with any small effort make any of the present or future apps work on Mac or on Linux. This way you don't have to make a thread for something like this that the rest of us have already, begrudgingly accepted.

(sorry if that comes off badly)
I however would not like to pay more to support development costs for making the software work on a Mac or linux.

I sort of get your frustration but not sure why your choice of computer should impact my wallet. Aren't there ways of running emulators or dual booting so you can run it on the Mac? Surely a little bit of inconvenience to a 'few' is much better than uping the cost to everyone.

I'm not for a minute suggesting that you should be paying more. I'm saying that I would. It should be possible to have two tiered payment systems, where you would pay more to use a Mac version of the program.

Ideally, I'd love to see the programs developed as a platform neutral system, but I'd be willing to pay for the convenience of using it on a Mac.

As I believe I even made clear in my post, I can pay Microsoft for a version of Windows to run these programs (plus more for Windows anti-virus protection). I would prefer to spend this money with WOTC.

However, I did not make it clear that I was not expecting all users to shoulder the costs. That would be undesirable.
You chose to use a Mac, and you chose to get the sub knowing what platform the material is made for. Mac is more than a niche market in D&D, I would probably say it is nearly non-existant since most D&D players are other types of gamers (video gamers) and those gamers don't use Mac.

So, please don't raise my cost of it because of an extremely small group of people are whining.

First, I don't think I came across as "whining". Second, I think that I made it pretty clear that I would be willing to pay more for a version that worked on Mac. I never, at any point in my post, suggested that the base version of the application should cost more. I was suggesting that a tiered price structure exist, to allow Mac users to pay a premium to get a version which would work on their computers natively.
Might as well get used to it since it's the way it is and probably the way it's going to stay. There's plenty of valid workarounds floating around suggested by mac users around here just use one. They've only got a couple developers and those developers are already working in .net which is PC only. Don't expect them to pay those developers to completely remake the apps for your niche, it's not really a viable business choice. This isn't going to change, coming back and whining about it when each component comes out won't make it any better.

Again, I don't know how I come across as whining consistently.

Do you suggest that consumers actively conceal their purchasing desires from producers?

I expressed disappointment, and I made it known that I would PAY MONEY for certain things. How is telling a business what products you would purchase from them, if they offered them, not helpful?

I'm going to express disappointment each time they release a program I can't use natively, just like a poster might express disappointment each time a power which is poorly written, overpowered, or underpowered is released. Do you expect people to complain about the first time an error is made, and then never complain about subsequent, different errors?

(Please note that I am not claiming that it was an error not to release this on the Mac. I am just expressing my desire that they would do so, and my willingness to purchase such a product--on the producer's own forums, no less).
.net is a pretty appealing platform, especially for creating this sort of application with a small team. It's also likely that Hasbro/Wizards has Visual Studio .net licensed already and that the programmers already had experience with C# and VB.net.

I don't doubt that. I believe, but my search-fu is weak at the moment, that one of the programmers even said that the decision to use .net was due to original (very short) time, learning, and budget constraints.

However, it has also been remarked that even within WOTC there were many Mac users who would like to have had a native or platform neutral version. In addition, the Monster Builder was released well after Character Builder. Thus, I had hoped that perhaps the original time constraints might not have applied, since they had an additional year from the CB release.


I'm just curious as to why so many people have posted on a discussion forum to tell me to stop whining and stop expressing my opinion on this. If NO ONE at all expressed any interest in having a Mac version of the CB or MB, then there would be no reason for WOTC to think about doing them. If, on the other hand, a substantial number of people expressed interest in purchasing such programs, that would encourage WOTC to consider making them. If I (and any other mac users) would like WOTC to make mac versions of these programs, isn't communicating that to WOTC (perhaps even via their own forum) the thing we should do?
Would it be a better world if the CB and Monster Builder ran on Macs and Linux? Probably.

Is it complain-worthy that it's not? No. I don't complain that I can't run them on my XBox, PSP or Wii. The mere fact that Macs have historically considered themselves a direct competitor of the PC doesn't entitle them to any sort of special treatment as a platform of second resort. You've already got a leg up in that your platform is able to run a Windows emulator with relatively minimal fuss.

I mean, you should totally keep asking for a Mac version. Customers vocally stating what they want is the way that companies know what products to make. I just think it's wrong to feel any sense of entitlement, or to suggest that Wizards has in some way failed by not catering to you.
In addition, the Monster Builder was released well after Character Builder. Thus, I had hoped that perhaps the original time constraints might not have applied, since they had an additional year from the CB release.

Yes, but they spent that time on doing new stuff. The Monster Builder reuses some stuff from the Character Builder, so it is inherently going to have the same platform restrictions as the Character Builder.

Seriously. The Adventure Tools updater is called "CharacterBuilderUpdater.exe" and "RealCharacterBuilderUpdater.exe".

So someone obviously noticed "Hey, we already did this before! Let's not waste time on remaking stuff we already have and use this stuff."
I have a good friend that is a mac guy, and he has an application that allows windows on his machine. I'm not a computer person at all really; I can figure stuff out after playing with it, but I know certain software.

If anyone wants to know more about that, I'm sure I can contact him to figure out what he does to use windows on his mac.
What I think it really boils down to is the cost of developing a native app versus the benefit in potential customers. The costs are very high since they would have to hire more programmers to design the same programs in a different programming language and development environment and then maintain both versions of the applications which means tracking totally different sets of bugs. The potential gains are fairly slim since they are composed of a subset of the potential and existing D&D fanbase who use only a Mac but are either unable or unwilling to use VM software on their computer. It would be a terrible move that would threaten the success of the future applications that their currently paying fan base are eagerly awaiting.

Selecting a development platform is a big choice for a company engaging in a software experiment the way Wizards is with DDi. It's not the kind of thing you can afford to second guess and change halfway down the line and expect your project to ever work properly or please any customers. As a currently paying customer I don't want them to pay any real attention to the mac minority and diverted any resources away from the upcoming applications to remake existing apps.

It's pretty easy to see that they won't be making any of the current or upcoming applications in any other flavors than windows native. You might not be happy about this but you should at least accept it for the way it is. Continuing to complain even after you realize something is not going to change constitutes whining in my book.
A horse died. We beat its corpse until nothing was left but a stain on the earth. That stain fed a blade of grass, which grew until it fed another horse, in turn. The second horse is dead, and now we are again beating a dead horse.
I killed Aleena.
i just happened across this thread, so I might not respond further.

There are emulsifier programs that allow the use of PC software on Macs.
Using one of those would allow to the of PC only Apps on a Mac.
Think you can survive a zombie attack? Click here to find out.

It Came From Section Four!
Warning: Posts my contain evil.

Orc in the House of Trolls
OK, I'll bounce the rubble...

I'm a die-hard Mac guy, and I too am disappointed that CB and MB aren't cross-platform.

But that isn't stopping me from running them under VMware. They work fine in a VM, and the tools are just too darn useful to get all that worked up about.

I'd love it if CB, MB and whatever other tools come along were ported to the Mac, but for now I'd rather the devs focused on making quality tools.
As someone who uses a mac exclusively:

WHY ARE YOU COMPLAINING?

Hate to say it, but if you choose a mac, you should KNOW that you're going to be put in situations where the software that looks all nice and shiny on the other OS will not work for you.

I have an Xbox 360. I had to shell out $20 for a program to be able to stream my pictures/movies/whatever from my mac to my xbox, which I wouldn't have had to do if I choose a mac.

Does it suck that they didn't make it mac accessable? Sure. However, as it was pointed out before: WotC is not a software company. If they were, they wouldn't have started programming the Visualizer without realizing they didn't have rights to the code that they were using, and the programs would be churning out faster.

While there are many ways to make a program that is OS agnostic, fact of the matter is that you need people who are specialized, and then you need to develop, program, and TEST it on even MORE systems, either delaying the product even MORE, or making it even MORE expensive because you have to hire more programmers to write/test everything in the same amount of time.

Sorry for the rant, but I kinda get upset when people who choose macs get all upset because software they want doesn't conveniently get programmed for roughly 6-8% of the computing market.

Again, it comes down to a choice YOU made, and that YOU are partially responsible for.

---- Mac owner of 10 years, running Parallels precisely because I don't want to complain like the OP about how horrible it is that nobody appreciates mac enough
Salla, on minions: I typically use them as encounter filler. 'I didn't quite fill out the XP budget, not enough room left for a decent near-level monster ... sprinkle in a few minions'. Kind of like monster styrofoam packing peanuts.
i just happened across this thread, so I might not respond further.

There are emulsifier programs that allow the use of PC software on Macs.
Using one of those would allow to the of PC only Apps on a Mac.

Best typo ever. :D

I am aware of emulator programs. I would prefer to be able to give WOTC more money than pay another two companies (the emulator company and Microsoft) money, since I would be ONLY buying their products to use another product.

Again, the reason I posted this was because one of the original developers of CB stated that the .net framework was chosen, in effect, due to original time and money constraints, and not due to any particular decision to marginalize Mac users, or any particular difficulty in making a platform agnostic program. I had hoped that, given the additional time available, and the additional resources available (especially since the Game Table and Character Visualizer were shelved or postponed), that it might have been possible to create a platform agnostic program for the Monster Builder, porting over the raw data from the CB.

Given that a subscription to DDi costs money, and that the CB is widely regarded as very useful (and the monster builder looks to be as well), I would have thought that WOTC might have viewed making these programs available for a wider audience might increase the sales of their subscription. It would appear that at least some potential subscribers are not subscribing due to this issue.

In addition, if, in the future, access to Dragon and Dungeon is disentangled from access to the CB and MB, those subscribers who don't run such programs may well opt for a less expensive subscription, both hurting WOTC financially, and reducing their budget for maintenance of CB and MB (since they are currently being subsidized by subscribers who don't use them as well as those who do).

As I have stated repeatedly, I wanted to convey the message that I would like to see MB on the Mac natively, and that I was willing to pay a premium for that. As I started the thread to do just that, I was evidently unaware that people who dislike or are tired of such threads are actually required to read them and respond. It had previously been my supposition that threads of no interest to me could simply be ignored. Perhaps others could also endeavor to post no thread which is not of interest to me, so that I am not forced to expend the herculean effort of not reading them.

I also was unaware that the forums do not allow anyone to post a negative comment. I must have misread the hundreds of other threads which appeared to feature users posting negative reactions to various rules, scenarios, adventures, books, and WOTC decisions. I had believed these to be expressing negative sentiments, but, since complaining appears to be startling and upsetting, I must have been mistaken. I would like to thank all the people who pointed this out to me, and thank them in advance for not posting at all about things that they dislike, such as others whining about Macs.:P
Thread should read

No OSX support
because a modern mac is just an over priced PC, you can run windows fine on the base hardware of it.
Best typo ever. :D

DAMN YOU SPELL CHECK.
DAMN YOU TO HELLL!!! :embarrass

Anyway porting a tool from one format to another costs money and takes up man power.
The result of porting these tools over is less resources to spend on making new tools.
Think you can survive a zombie attack? Click here to find out.

It Came From Section Four!
Warning: Posts my contain evil.

Orc in the House of Trolls
What I think it really boils down to is the cost of developing a native app versus the benefit in potential customers. The costs are very high since they would have to hire more programmers to design the same programs in a different programming language and development environment and then maintain both versions of the applications which means tracking totally different sets of bugs. The potential gains are fairly slim since they are composed of a subset of the potential and existing D&D fanbase who use only a Mac but are either unable or unwilling to use VM software on their computer. It would be a terrible move that would threaten the success of the future applications that their currently paying fan base are eagerly awaiting.

Selecting a development platform is a big choice for a company engaging in a software experiment the way Wizards is with DDi. It's not the kind of thing you can afford to second guess and change halfway down the line and expect your project to ever work properly or please any customers. As a currently paying customer I don't want them to pay any real attention to the mac minority and diverted any resources away from the upcoming applications to remake existing apps.

It's pretty easy to see that they won't be making any of the current or upcoming applications in any other flavors than windows native. You might not be happy about this but you should at least accept it for the way it is. Continuing to complain even after you realize something is not going to change constitutes whining in my book.

When I see posts like this I can understand why WotC was mislead into believing it to be difficult to create a cross-platform application. Seriously if you start designing it at the beginning with multiple platforms in mind, then there is no reason financial or otherwise to not make it multi-platform. Now the CB is already out and wasn't designed to be changed. I can see the problem of porting it and the costs involved. On the other hand I'm assuming they had a much longer time with the MB and ATs. Because of this if they had designed it with multi-platform compatibility in mind, there would have been little or no cost or time involved in porting it. I suggest the developers look up multi-platform design on Google and see how really easy it is to do. We are talking from inception to market costing only 5-20% more in time and money depending on what you use as your abstraction layer/engine. SDL is an example of a very useful cross platform engine. There are even entire API's that are cross platform that will create the exact same thing on multiple platforms. Some of them are even free. With the proper design and methods it doesn't cost very much at all to go cross-platform. That's without even looking at things like web based solutions that always run on multi-platforms. So really even though I am a windows user through and through I'm with the OP on this one, sure the CB was a problem, but this is just getting inexcusable.
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
When I see posts like this I can understand why WotC was mislead into believing it to be difficult to create a cross-platform application.

Only, it's been shown that wasn't why they didn't go that route, and the link and quote have been given to you over and over.

They weren't mislead into thinking it would be to hard.
just pick up a copy of xp or vista or something. heck, i bet you can find more use for it than just the wotc software. I have a macbook and run vista and it's really not that bad (considering the flak vista gets). Runs extremely well on my macbook.
When I see posts like this I can understand why WotC was mislead into believing it to be difficult to create a cross-platform application. Seriously if you start designing it at the beginning with multiple platforms in mind, then there is no reason financial or otherwise to not make it multi-platform.

le sigh
And once again to the quote file...

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.

Mudbunny SVCL for DDI Before you post, think of the Monkeysphere
le sigh
And once again to the quote file...

And once again you didn't seem to read my entire post. I give that the CB was made on a tight schedule. The monster builder however had much more time, and they didn't have to follow the same design as the CB. therefore that post doesn't really apply to what I said.
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Only, it's been shown that wasn't why they didn't go that route, and the link and quote have been given to you over and over.

They weren't mislead into thinking it would be to hard.

Actually, if there excuse is that it will take a lot of extra time, or a lot of extra resources they are wrong, unless of course they are locked into a contract to use .Net 2003 or whatever. Really it takes a tiny amount of extra effort and time to do it at the beginning.
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Actually, if there excuse is that it will take a lot of extra time, or a lot of extra resources they are wrong, unless of course they are locked into a contract to use .Net 2003 or whatever. Really it takes a tiny amount of extra effort and time to do it at the beginning.

That wasn't their excuse.

The reason was that it wasn't worth the cost, because the revenue from Mac customers wouldn't even cover the cost.

Meaning, they had the time, they had the resources, they had the money. What they didn't have was enough customers using MACs, before they started this. Not after, where mac using customers could simply run a emulator.

Why is that so hard to understand?
That wasn't their excuse.

The reason was that it wasn't worth the cost, because the revenue from Mac customers wouldn't even cover the cost.

Meaning, they had the time, they had the resources, they had the money. What they didn't have was enough customers using MACs, before they started this. Not after, where mac using customers could simply run a emulator.

Why is that so hard to understand?

It's not. That's acknowledged for the CB, however this issue came up after the CB, but before they even knew which AT they were going to do first (MB). Thus they had plenty of time to plan it from the beginning of the MB to do it cross platform. Doing it from the planning stage would have cost almost nothing more than doing a plain windows version. Heck they could have even just made the windows version and designed it to be ported easily, and done that later on down the road. As of now.
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Mac support is not worth the money...


when I was taking a buisness class many many years ago it was explained to me as % retuern...

If I spend $100 to make $200 profit (Yes profit over cost)
or I can spend $125 to make $205 profit
or I can spend $150 to make $207 profit

witch is the best use of the money...well Years ago in that class I said C...spend 150 make 207 profit...I was told not really. you see in A I made 2$ profit (over cost) per dollor invested...in B and C that drops...the best use of my money is A...the largest out for the smallest in...

the reason is time... lets say it is a year investment...1 year of $100 tied up gives me $50 to put elsewhere...hopefuly at a better retuenr...

Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say?

It's not. That's acknowledged for the CB, however this issue came up after the CB, but before they even knew which AT they were going to do first (MB). Thus they had plenty of time to plan it from the beginning of the MB to do it cross platform. Doing it from the planning stage would have cost almost nothing more than doing a plain windows version. Heck they could have even just made the windows version and designed it to be ported easily, and done that later on down the road. As of now.

you assume that MB and specifically AT is separate then CB. I believe its the opposite it is gonig to rill in all the apps together.

So saying "Its a new app they could start a new platform" is invalid. Because MB is probably build upon the CB base because its going to all roll together.

Play whatever the **** you want. Never Point a loaded party at a plot you are not willing to shoot. Arcane Rhetoric. My Blog.

The Adventure Tools' updater program is called "CharacterBuilderUpdater.exe"...

Now, could they have chosen to replicate work already done and make the AT on a new platform? Sure. But they didn't, presumably to save time (thus money) on bringing out the AT.
you assume that MB and specifically AT is separate then CB. I believe its the opposite it is gonig to rill in all the apps together.

So saying "Its a new app they could start a new platform" is invalid. Because MB is probably build upon the CB base because its going to all roll together.

While the apps might work together I believe based on my experiences that it will be more along the lines of each app opening the output of the other apps. As in the combat tracker opening the output files for the CB and MB. the campaign mapper or encounter builder opening each others files or something along those lines. Since this is the most likely case, it would not affect being cross-platform. It is as simple as reading XML which any platform can do.

Also its a misconception to assume that you are starting a new platform. Its more like building in the ability to separate what the app does from the platform its on, then just matching up an API on both platforms. It adds negligible time and effort to the actual work.
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
The Adventure Tools' updater program is called "CharacterBuilderUpdater.exe"...

Now, could they have chosen to replicate work already done and make the AT on a new platform? Sure. But they didn't, presumably to save time (thus money) on bringing out the AT.

There's another misconception. The code that does the calculating is a matter of copy and pasting. The only work that needs to be done is matching an API that will work on the other platform. It works like this:

Code that does the program specific things like calculating AC, and the attack roll and things of that nature sit at the top and make no platform or API specific calls. They make calls to a middle layer called the abstraction layer. The abstraction layer then makes calls to a specific API on a specific platform. This API can be changed out with a minimal rewrite of the abstraction layer to make calls to the new API. In most cases this is a simple find and replace job like 'find "createMSWindow()" replace with "createMacWindow()"' of course those functions don't really exist, but the idea is there. In the rare case that there is something that doesn't directly translate you can usually get it to do what you want it to do with a few extra lines of code. In situations like a Microsoft window control versus a Mac window control really most calls will have a direct mirror on the other API.

So like I said if you start with a cross-platform design there is very little extra time or money spent, and the amount of profit is maximized. Of course if they can't do it because they are making all of the programs in .Net because they want them to plug and play into each other, then there is nothing they can do. This is very unlikely and very amateurish, so I don't think they would be doing it that way.
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
So like I said if you start with a cross-platform design there is very little extra time or money spent, and the amount of profit is maximized.

Mr brown (My old buisness teacher) would have some diffrent thoughts on maximized... see every $ spent is an investment...if you can invest 5 to get 20, or 6 to get 21, 0r 10 to get 23...the maximized bet in buisness is 5 to 20...then to take the other 5 (fromt he 10 example) and find anything that is better then spend 10 to get 13...and you are ahead of the game...

Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say?

Lokiare:

Sure, it's possible to create cross-platform software, and there are several ways of doing it. The question isn't whether it's possible, but whether such a solution fit into time frame, assets, skills, experience, tools, costs, goals, advantages, disadvantages, and all other considerations.

Obviously it wasn't a good fit.

If it was always trivial to implement, with only advantages and no disadvantages, they would have done it, right?

Your insistence that you know how their development process should and does work arrogant, short-sighted, and naive.

They aren't out to screw over Mac users. It would be nice if there was a Mac and Linux version. However, it didn't work out that way. No amount of second-guessing and vicarious development on your part is going to change that until it becomes reasonable for them to do so.

In the meantime, it's best to use one of several solutions mentioned.
So like I said if you start with a cross-platform design there is very little extra time or money spent, and the amount of profit is maximized.

Yes, we know. You've said this a million times. However, we do not possess a time machine to go back in time and make them start with a cross-platform design.

They are already grandfathered into the .NET platform. That is how they have their code. That is where their current expertise is. If they decided now (we are talking about the present, not the past) to change to an abstraction layer (or whatever), then whatever little progress they have would come to a grinding halt.

This is not the start. The start was a couple years ago. Each new tool doesn't count as a new start.
Sign In to post comments