Addendum: Can anyone point me to info on where the engine for the new programs came from? I've programmed before, and claiming it's "easier to work with existing code than work from scratch" is rarely stated by programmers. Unless it's a well documented engine, we always would rather start from scratch.
Unfortunately, Didier Monin didn't give us any details beyond that. I agree that working from scratch is oft-times better, but my guess is that it was code that the current developers had worked up for another project that could be easily adapted to this project.
If you want a real answer, the person to ask would be Didier, I think. --sam
Decivre, you don't know me. Don't make baseless assumptions about me.
I don't bag on Windows. I have never bagged on Windows in this thread. I think Windows is a fine operating system. I think Mac is better sure, but only just slightly. I don't think Mac OS is way ahead of anything. I just like it better, and yes, I've also used every version of Windows imaginable. I've also worked on other OSes too.
What I don't like is Windows-only users coming on here and pretending that there isn't another way. Another path that if thought through from the beginning would have made a lot more sense for a product such as this. I'm not saying that they have to come out with a Mac or Linux version on day one. All I'm saying is that they should set themselves up so that coming out with something like that is easier... not harder. They should set themselves up for success. And I'm disappointed that it seems that they didn't think it through on this one.
No one is denying that Windows is the dominant OS on the market.
What you're failing to hear is that we're concerned that this digital effort will fail, and that we want to help make it a success. What you're failing to hear is that we're concerned that we're not only losing out on the digital tools, but that we're losing out on the two magazines that have been a part of our gaming life for 30 years (because we'll be paying a Mac/Linux tax for them). What you're failing to hear is that we are fans of WotC and that decisions like this make us think twice about that.
So... as I've stated so many times before. I understand why they made the decision they made. I still don't agree with it, and I look forward to seeing how or if it ever gets resolved in some satisfactory way.
--sam
I never made baseless assumptions about you, Lalato. I don't remember directing any specific comment toward you, and have only mentioned your name directly twice (including the first sentence in this post). Of course, if in your next post you can direct me to where I did comment directly on you, I will apologize and correct it immediately. Debate is a battle of opinions, not people.
I think the primary concern I have in my argument is the fact that I am a programmer. I know what kind of crap we can go through, and I know how despite the fact that people want "portability", it's oftentimes more of a hassle than it should be. I'd love to live in a world where the universal standard was actually universally accepted, but even in the world of computer programming, that isn't the case.
That being said, most programmers today are trained on C++ and DirectX. It's a standard for most 3D engines, and that hasn't been very contested, even by OpenGL. We already have all the work in the world fixing bugs and adding features in to please the crowd, so oftentimes the things that may seem the most important often get pushed into the back of the waiting list for things to do. Of all the things yet to do for this program, much like any program, I think that making it feature-filled and concise while simultaneously making it user-friendly and full of options far outweighs the need to please the 10% margin of other OSes that exist on the market. It sounds cruel, but believe me when I say that in the world of programming, you got to add things in parts, rather than shoving it all in at once not knowing how it'll come out.
That being said, I wholeheartedly agree with you in that you're getting screwed with the currently announced payment system. They should not be forcing you to pay for a program that you cannot use, and there should be an option (at least until they do open up the use of these programs on other OSes, if that is a future plan) for you to skip that part of the monthly fees.
Remember, D&D is a business, and much like any businesses it sometimes takes a failure to get the ball rolling in the right direction. If not putting it on Mac and Linux turns enough people away from the game (which from the sounds of things it might turn just enough away), then we might see some change coming around due to this problem. Natural selection has to take it's course, just look at 3.0 D&D and how it had to change eventually, and the failures of 3.5 even (man were some people p****d about that upgrade). Life and business are both learning experiences, and we'll see if it'll be one in this case too.
Trust me, I agree that it sucks that you guys are getting left out, but believe me when I say that there are so many decisions that go in the coding phase that portability was probably just pushed way down there. I liken it to the analogy of two men sitting on opposite sides of a window. One angry because he's stuck out in the rain, the other confused as to why it's his fault.
I never made baseless assumptions about you, Lalato. I don't remember directing any specific comment toward you, and have only mentioned your name directly twice (including the first sentence in this post). Of course, if in your next post you can direct me to where I did comment directly on you, I will apologize and correct it immediately. Debate is a battle of opinions, not people.
Well, you painted with a fairly broad brush with your last statement. It was hard not to get caught in your brush strokes.
I think the primary concern I have in my argument is the fact that I am a programmer. I know what kind of crap we can go through, and I know how despite the fact that people want "portability", it's oftentimes more of a hassle than it should be. I'd love to live in a world where the universal standard was actually universally accepted, but even in the world of computer programming, that isn't the case.
I agree that portability isn't as easy as working with a single OS. It's fine to not worry about it if you're making a game that people play by themselves. The math changes somewhat when you're talking about a platform for social games like D&D.
That being said, most programmers today are trained on C++ and DirectX. It's a standard for most 3D engines, and that hasn't been very contested, even by OpenGL. We already have all the work in the world fixing bugs and adding features in to please the crowd, so oftentimes the things that may seem the most important often get pushed into the back of the waiting list for things to do. Of all the things yet to do for this program, much like any program, I think that making it feature-filled and concise while simultaneously making it user-friendly and full of options far outweighs the need to please the 10% margin of other OSes that exist on the market. It sounds cruel, but believe me when I say that in the world of programming, you got to add things in parts, rather than shoving it all in at once not knowing how it'll come out.
No one is asking them to shove it in all at once. I can only speak for myself, but all I want is for the possibility of portability to exist. I've seen the demo for the Game Table and for the Character Creator. Nothing in those demos would lead anyone to believe that this would require some kind of crazy 3D programming that OpenGL can't handle.
Well, you painted with a fairly broad brush with your last statement. It was hard not to get caught in your brush strokes.
Well, as I said, this is a battle of opinions. That means the opinion is fair game, while the person is not.
Lalato wrote:
I agree that portability isn't as easy as working with a single OS. It's fine to not worry about it if you're making a game that people play by themselves. The math changes somewhat when you're talking about a platform for social games like D&D.
Not always. Remember that most games (including MMOs) are built with Windows only in mind. Exceptions include World of Warcraft, but just because the biggest one does it doesn't mean all of them do it. Remember that DDI isn't even in it's infancy yet, and it'll take some time to find out just how valuable cross platform portability is actually worth.
Lalato wrote:
No one is asking them to shove it in all at once. I can only speak for myself, but all I want is for the possibility of portability to exist. I've seen the demo for the Game Table and for the Character Creator. Nothing in those demos would lead anyone to believe that this would require some kind of crazy 3D programming that OpenGL can't handle.
Remember that these were very early builds of those programs. To tell you the truth, I'm hoping that the virtual gametable final version will show walls, unlike the preview build. I'm not going to judge the final product by what I've seen so far, however.
Even discounting "crazy 3D programming", DirectX is still a much easier platform to code on, and these guys are on a very solid deadline now that 4E has been announced. If you have to get to work ASAP, and your neighbor gets angry that you're using a car instead of a bike which hurts the environment, I doubt you'd change your mind (not the best analogy, but I think it gets the point across).
Remember that these were very early builds of those programs. To tell you the truth, I'm hoping that the virtual gametable final version will show walls, unlike the preview build. I'm not going to judge the final product by what I've seen so far, however.
Well, I think you're going to fairly disappointed. From the hints we've received thus far, there won't be walls or landscape... just tiles. The only truly 3D thing about it is the character modeling and the lighting. At least based on the hints that have been dropped thus far.
Even discounting "crazy 3D programming", DirectX is still a much easier platform to code on, and these guys are on a very solid deadline now that 4E has been announced. If you have to get to work ASAP, and your neighbor gets angry that you're using a car instead of a bike which hurts the environment, I doubt you'd change your mind (not the best analogy, but I think it gets the point across).
That's a really bad analogy. It's more like, there is a two hour commute into the city and there are 5 people that need to get to work. Only four fit in the coupe, but they can all fit in the train. And the train only adds an extra 15 minutes to the commute and pollutes less. If WotC drives the train, I'll ride it.
Well, I think you're going to fairly disappointed. From the hints we've received thus far, there won't be walls or landscape... just tiles. The only truly 3D thing about it is the character modeling and the lighting. At least based on the hints that have been dropped thus far.
Like I said, they still have 6 months to finish. They have time to add detail, so we'll just have to wait and see. I won't be totally angry if there are no walls, but I have to agree that there was no reason to use DirectX if it's going to be simplistic models and primitive lighting. That could have been pulled off using Java even.
Lalato wrote:
That's a really bad analogy. It's more like, there is a two hour commute into the city and there are 5 people that need to get to work. Only four fit in the coupe, but they can all fit in the train. And the train only adds an extra 15 minutes to the commute and pollutes less. If WotC drives the train, I'll ride it.
Agreed, a much better analogy BUT it forgets one important detail the previous analogy had: a due date. DDI has to release with 4E, and most players are going to be (censor very derogatory series of words that defines how angry the players will be) if it doesn't hit then, and EXACTLY then. I'd rather anger one person for every 10 then all of them.
Like I said, they still have 6 months to finish. They have time to add detail, so we'll just have to wait and see. I won't be totally angry if there are no walls, but I have to agree that there was no reason to use DirectX if it's going to be simplistic models and primitive lighting. That could have been pulled off using Java even.
According to WotC hints thus far, they want to keep it fairly simple. They want it to feel more like you're playing on your kitchen table than like you're playing WoW or EverQuest. That's why there won't be much in the way of 3D environment. That doesn't mean they don't reserve the right to add this stuff later... but I'm fairly certain that the initial release will be basic tiles that can be found in the Dungeon Tiles product and perhaps a few tiles that will Game Table exclusives. The tiles will be 2D. The characters will not actually move. They will be static poses and will be virtual miniatures.... and just like miniatures, they will be static. No walking, nothing. Again, this is a simulation of the pen & paper experience. It's not supposed to be anything more than that.
You're right that they don't need DirectX for that. And that's what makes this such a weird discussion to have. They could have easily made something that was cross platform or at least made the guts of it portable. Instead they chose to go with something that they didn't need and that actively makes it harder for them to change course later. That's why I don't agree with the decision.
Agreed, a much better analogy BUT it forgets one important detail the previous analogy had: a due date. DDI has to release with 4E, and most players are going to be (censor very derogatory series of words that defines how angry the players will be) if it doesn't hit then, and EXACTLY then. I'd rather anger one person for every 10 then all of them.
There is a due date. Everyone needs to get to work in the morning. The car gets there in 2 hours. The train gets there in 2:15. If they had planned from the beginning to take the train, they would have had no problem getting to work on time. Instead, they opted for the car and left one person stranded. Where the analogy breaks down is that the 5th person can still take the train and catch up to everyone else. The reality of WotC's decision is such that the 5th person doesn't even have that option.
According to WotC hints thus far, they want to keep it fairly simple. They want it to feel more like you're playing on your kitchen table than like you're playing WoW or EverQuest. That's why there won't be much in the way of 3D environment. That doesn't mean they don't reserve the right to add this stuff later... but I'm fairly certain that the initial release will be basic tiles that can be found in the Dungeon Tiles product and perhaps a few tiles that will Game Table exclusives. The tiles will be 2D. The characters will not actually move. They will be static poses and will be virtual miniatures.... and just like miniatures, they will be static. No walking, nothing. Again, this is a simulation of the pen & paper experience. It's not supposed to be anything more than that.
You're right that they don't need DirectX for that. And that's what makes this such a weird discussion to have. They could have easily made something that was cross platform or at least made the guts of it portable. Instead they chose to go with something that they didn't need and that actively makes it harder for them to change course later. That's why I don't agree with the decision.
I think this is mostly just all speculation from what has been seen. While yes they are in fact only going to simulate a gametable experience, there's no reason they can't use 3D detailings for such things as walls and whatnot, not to mention that elevation effects should also be taken into play. I have yet to see proof they will use neither of these. Add into that some of the effects I can seen the potential to use (dynamic light sources, basic scaling for the use of spells like enlarge). I have hope for what they might add, while still holding true to the gametable experience (I've seen some amazing-looking gametables).
Lalato wrote:
There is a due date. Everyone needs to get to work in the morning. The car gets there in 2 hours. The train gets there in 2:15. If they had planned from the beginning to take the train, they would have had no problem getting to work on time. Instead, they opted for the car and left one person stranded. Where the analogy breaks down is that the 5th person can still take the train and catch up to everyone else. The reality of WotC's decision is such that the 5th person doesn't even have that option.
What about the fact that we don't know when the decision came up? Perhaps there was only 2 hours and 5 minutes until work? You mention yourself they stole a 3D engine from another project. Now the car ride seems more like 1:45, and they could have less than 2 hours to get there?
I think my point with all this is that they may tell us the reasoning behind their decisions later on down the road, or it may just be more simple than we're thinking (Magic Online, and just about all software ever produced by Wizards, has been exclusive to Windows).
Historically there has been poor support for Apple computers, at best, from DnD and DnD-type games. If you look at offerings like DnD Online you simply have Zero support for Apple computers.
Granted a printed book is enough to play DnD 4e, but if Mac isn't as fully supported in every way as the Windows users are I am simply NOT going to buy it. Just as simple as that.
I guess we can all talk about market share and exactly how big the mac crowd is.. but in the end you are segregating your user base. You send the signal that "We, Wizards of the Coast, value our customers that happen to own Windows too." So people that own OS X, Linux, or -gasp- no computer at all end up feeling like 3rd class citizens. Frankly I think it is bad business sense. For a "Mac success" one can look at a company like Blizzard that releases products for Mac and PC at the same time, same patch level.
I guess it boils down to the fact that I have high hopes for DnD 4e, but doubt I'll get it since it'll be crippled and not thoughtfully supported for Mac. I'd be nice if WotC would come on and say, "No you are wrong. It'll work great on all Apple computers." But I don't see that happening.
At the risk of sounding like every other dweeb out there, let me preface my comments with a little about me.
I've been playing D&D for over 20 years and using Macs for over 20 years as well. Professionally, I'm the head of Mac technology at a Fortune 500 company. That said, I'm far from a Mac zealot, and I have used Windows personally and professionally in my lifetime.
I understand that any Mac vs. PC discussion is bound to become just as heated and just as pathetic as any Kirk vs. Picard discussion. However, despite what the uninformed Mac critics may believe, the Mac is gaining market share, and its gaining fastest amongst young people with disposable incomes. Mac users are more often than not the smart & creative people. Sounds like Wizards' demographic to me. Young, smart, creative people with disposable income. Have a look at this article and the study it talks about (I'll wait):
So Mac users are significantly more likely than Windows users to join and participate in online services. Hmm... something to think about, huh WOTC?
Now lets think about Active X, Direct X, all of the Microsoft Xes. They're poor product, shoddy tools for lazy programmers. They cause problems and are the sources of many of Windows' countless vulnerabilities. They are not standards-based, they're proprietary. They're a crutch for lame programmers who can't write real code and spend all day rearranging the poorly-functioning tinkertoys that Microsoft hands out. If you write something standards-based, you end up with a better product for your Windows users, and you can sell to the non-Windows users.
To all of the disgruntled Mac users who are planning to boycott 4th edition: grow up and get a little perspective. D&D is a game of books, dice and character sheets. I started playing before Mac OS or Windows existed, and I'll continue playing no matter what happens to either platform.
To WOTC: You'll get my money for the 4th Edition Core Rulebook Collection. I currently GM a weekly Star Wars Saga Edition game, and from all indications so far, 4e will be like Saga, but maybe even better. But if any of the accountants are reading this, make note. You'll get about $50 out of me once. If you make a desirable Mac-compatible tool to assist me in my playing and GMing, you could get my money every month, ongoing. Isn't that what you want? You could have my money every month and the money of all those other young, smart, creative people with disposable income that are using or are projected to switch to the Mac platform.
A standards-based product would get our money, and make your Windows customers happy too.
