Printing... beware. I printed my L16 Thief (Rogue) at work and saw that it spooled close to 1GB of data before sending it to my printer, and when I printed to a pdf using Acrobat 9 pdf print drivers, the result, for a standard, default pdf, was slightly less than 1.5MB. Really? With the old CB, all my pdf's were around 500KB. Some optimization please?
By sending it to print as an image, they're preventing people from copying and pasting the text. Its entirely possible to scrape copy/pasted text and use it in a 3rd party application if its always presented in the same format. So yeah, huge PDFs it is until WoTC figures out that it benefits them to support their community.
By sending it to print as an image, they're preventing people from copying and pasting the text. Its entirely possible to scrape copy/pasted text and use it in a 3rd party application if its always presented in the same format. So yeah, huge PDFs it
Hum i wonder why i pay a subscription to use a product that i would not even allow into a beta stage at this point.
Check your server architecture or scale it up asp wizards the lag on your little attempt at a web application is terrible.
Several parts of the builder that are missing can fortunately still be found in the offline builder. But as times go by it will be more and more obsolete due to missing information.
The fact that your alpha product is missing such basic functions like choosing your powers on the character you are building is an insult to us paying customers.
Hum i wonder why i pay a subscription to use a product that i would not even allow into a beta stage at this point.Check your server architecture or scale it up asp wizards the lag on your little attempt at a web application is terrible.Several parts
So the first patch is out to deal with the server issue, and guess what? It is STILL BETA! We went from v0.1.155.0 to v0.1.4.0. Can we really call this a patch? It looks like they retrograded to an earlier build. 155 back to 4. Unless 4 means 400 and the trailing zeros are truncated... Either way, we have that troublesome 0 in front, which tells us computer types that this is BETA SOFTWARE! So here we are, paying for the privilage of being beta testers.
So the first patch is out to deal with the server issue, and guess what? It is STILL BETA! We went from v0.1.155.0 to v0.1.4.0. Can we really call this a patch? It looks like they retrograded to an earlier build. 155 back to 4. Unless 4 means 4
When ever i try to use the character builder it crashes. It may be a few seconds after trying to start a customer character and picking the starting leve. or if I try to recover an unsaved character, or a few minutes into creating a customer character. This application has crashed every single time i have tried to use it. Each time, if I wait long enough I get the same error message
This has happened on my home computer (Windows 7 64-bit using Chrome) or my work computer (windows XP SP3 Internet Explorer 7)
I much prefer the old downloaded application to this web application.
When ever i try to use the character builder it crashes. It may be a few seconds after trying to start a customer character and picking the starting leve. or if I try to recover an unsaved character, or a few minutes into creating a customer charact
5 crashes in less than 2 hours. Some wizard at-will powers are missing entirely. Can't get the character sheet to view for longer than 2 minutes before it crashed twice.
I tried to use it with an open mind, but quite frankly it sucks. Hard.
5 crashes in less than 2 hours. Some wizard at-will powers are missing entirely. Can't get the character sheet to view for longer than 2 minutes before it crashed twice.I tried to use it with an open mind, but quite frankly it sucks. Hard. :(
I was playing with it earlier and it was slow and a bit painful. Now I cant even use it locks up at picking a realm.
I really wanted this to work, I really like the idea of an Online Character Builder but it's gimpware right now. Needs to go back in the oven also needs more then 20 characters and a setting option that allows everything to be picked from including Dark Sun.
I pay by month, so Ill give it til the new year but if it's still crappy, I'll just kill a saturday make all the characters and levels I need and bail until it gets fixed.
I was playing with it earlier and it was slow and a bit painful. Now I cant even use it locks up at picking a realm.I really wanted this to work, I really like the idea of an Online Character Builder but it's gimpware right now. Needs to go back in t
Is there a thread or reference document somewhere that indicates the changes from one version of the Web CB to the next? I noticed that the number had changed, and saw a brief note about changes to try to fix crashes, but I'm still hunting for a version document somewhere. Anyone see one?
Is there a thread or reference document somewhere that indicates the changes from one version of the Web CB to the next? I noticed that the number had changed, and saw a brief note about changes to try to fix crashes, but I'm still hunting for a ver
Another thing that's missing. The new Character sheet doesn't display Passive Insight and Passive Perception.
And now it doesn't seem to work at all. I'm trying to load a character I saved, and all it does is freeze up. It freezes up when I try to make a new character (either custom or Quick Essentials) too. So at this point, it's completely useless.
This is great.
Another thing that's missing. The new Character sheet doesn't display Passive Insight and Passive Perception.And now it doesn't seem to work at all. I'm trying to load a character I saved, and all it does is freeze up. It freezes up when I try to mak
I tried to use it with an open mind, but quite frankly it sucks. Hard.
In the past hour, I had it crash seven times in a row. I'm running a pretty swell computer on my cable internet connection. Sad.
Everyone who has used it that I know, hates it. Why is there no way on your character sheet to know how many of an item you have. COME ON, LIKE ANYONE HAS A SINGLE SURVIVAL DAY IN Dark Sun. It's a good thing it doesn't add the inherent bonuses to any abilities. We were waiting on an update for our adventure. I guess it still doesn't matter.
Sweet, new more defective character sheets. Lets waste some more paper. Please. And more ink for that guys face up in the corner. Super important that character art was.
Yay, I get to have a portrait of some guy who has hair, and THERE IS NO WAY TO TURN IT OFF.
Great, it true, the horrible thing I always suspected. Pyromancer can't use any fire at wills. I'M SO GLAD THAT EXISTS AS SUBSCRIBER CONTENT.
I can't go back and change.... ANYTHING? WT.....
So, let me get this straight, I get to re-open the browser when a racial option or a class option doesn't work or I found out that most of the skills have a rider that is different than the option I originally chose? Then rebuilding the old thing without any reference to what I just made?
"Hey Carl... you wanna give your money away to some homeless guy? Yes, yes I do. How bout letting him use up the phone battery so that you cant get help when your car runs out of gas? You know what? ............" - Yes Man
In the past hour, I had it crash seven times in a row. I'm running a pretty swell computer on my cable internet connection. Sad.Everyone who has used it that I know, hates it. Why is there no way on your character sheetto know how many of an item you
The description for Action Points in the CB Character Sheet is wrong. It says you gain a standard action when you spend an action point. This, of course, is not precisely true. You gain an action, and you decide what kind of action it is. I haven't read anything in the new Essentials source books that changes that, and the Compendium states:
Gain an extra action: You gain an extra action this turn. You decide if the action is a standard action, a move action, or a minor action.
Finally got CB working again. The description for Action Points in the CB Character Sheet is wrong. It says you gain a standard action when you spend an action point. This, of course, is not precisely true. You gain an action, and you decide what kin
We should all ban together and complain about this in mass numbers by calling them every chance we get. I mean seriously this BUILDER sucks and i will personally be ending my subscription until i hear this builder has improved drastically.
I am still using the OLD BUILDER and found that program a thousand times better. The new builder seems BETA ware to me...Heck even ALPHA ware!
Man i am really upset and dissapointed by this crappy product.
We should all ban together and complain about this in mass numbers by calling them every chance we get. I mean seriously this BUILDER sucks and i will personally be ending my subscription until i hear this builder has improved drastically.I am still
I would argue that a standard action can be downgraded to a move action or a minor action, and thus the description is arguably correct.
It's not, strictly speaking, wrong, but as I said, it's not precisely correct either. The way it reads right now could cause someone to believe that it has to be a standard action (in other words, that you can't "downgrade" it). The text in bold in my post is from the Compendium. That text is exactly correct, and there's no excuse for WOTC putting in a wrong description. And considering that they put in a bunch of extra text about action points, it should be a simple thing for them to put the correct text in.
It's not, strictly speaking, wrong, but as I said, it's not precisely correct either. The way it reads right now could cause someone to believe that it has to be a standard action (in other words, that you can't "downgrade" it). The text in bold in m
Another thing: Why doesn't the Character Sheet show the range for your ranged weapons? That's pretty basic info that should be on there (it was on the old Character Builder).
I keep finding more problems. My character has Melee Training (Dexterity) but the Basic Melee Attack is still calculating my attack based on my strength.
Another thing: Why doesn't the Character Sheet show the range for your ranged weapons? That's pretty basic info that should be on there (it was on the old Character Builder).I keep finding more problems. My character has Melee Training (Dexterity) bu
I can not choose powers. The tab is there, almost empty, only a combobox, but it is empty itself. As I can not see it in the known issues, I guess it is not a bug, and I am missing something. Can someone help?
Well it sucks not to be american but here you can find a solution :
Greetings I must say this was the most unimpressive online feature I have ever seen by a proffesional company. Is this character builder made by schoolchildren? The people that has made this should be ashamed! This is not even Beta standar but a poor Alpha standard at best!
Minimum extremly important fixes you really must fix at once is: the power issue of regonal settings for all europeans the ability to scroll through feats the ability to hide feats you are sure you will not use the ability to lay in text for those feats/powers the CB dont have the ability to export characters the maximum 0f 20 character
*It crasches all the time *It is very slow to say the least *The interface is a total joke ! *You have no overview at all for all submenys and way to big choise buttons *you can not scroll. I can't scroll trough a list using my arrow keys. I have to manually click on each and every option. "How can you not have this !!!" *You can not choose to see all feats that you can not take and might want to take with small change *You can not hide unwanted feats to make the overwiew better, you always must look through them all even if you know that you will not take certain feats. * You dont have a overwiew over feat with smallcomment at side what they do so it is near impossible to get a decent look over. *The item section is a total mess when it comes to interface and overwiew * The main and off hand equpment doesnt work. *The Powers doesnt seem to work at moment, they must be visible and be able to choose from *You can not choose to have races, classes, backgrounds, feats or powers from certain worlds not being incorporated in your choises. *You can not add your own character pictures *You can not add text or change the character sheets ‘You can not add house rules or extra feats *You can only have 20 saved characters??? *You can not export your characters * Europeans doesnt even get to see the powers without each time swapping regional setting!
That’s just a small start of problems when it comes to this character builder. I can just not understand how you can even consider too take money for this utterly worthless new character builder without being ashamed. At the very least you should have all subscribers use it freely untill it is up in pair with the old character builder!
So unless you start the old DDI character builder back and update the latest essential books or Fix all the above problems within a week I want to quit my subscription and have a refund ASAP. I will not pay for this utter junk!
I have already sent a mail ending my subscription and asked for a refund because I am certain that this will not be fixed for months and I am not paying for utter crap that are more or less useless to use.
GreetingsI must say this was the most unimpressive online feature I have ever seen by a proffesional company. Is this character builder made by schoolchildren? The people that has made this should be ashamed! This is not even Beta standar but a poor
My character has Melee Training (Dexterity) but the Basic Melee Attack is still calculating my attack based on my strength.
Update: It turns out that Melee Training (Dexterity) is redundant since basing Melee Basic Attacks on Dex is a class feature for Rogues in Essentials. It would be nice if the CB warned you that a feat you select is redundant.
However, taking the Master At Arms feat (which is supposed to add a +1 bonus to weapon attacks) doesn't seem to make any difference. My Basic Melee Attack bonus with a +1 Shortsword is 11 with or without that feat.
Update: It turns out that Melee Training (Dexterity) is redundant since basing Melee Basic Attacks on Dex is a class feature for Rogues in Essentials. It would be nice if the CB warned you that a feat you select is redundant.However, taking the Maste
Our gaming group chips in to afford the subscription just for the character builder. If not for the character builder, it would be impractical for our group to continue playing fourth edition. My question is this: Will it be possible for more than one of us to be logged in to use the character builder simultaneously? If not that would be a huge inconvienience to our group. Thank You.
Our gaming group chips in to afford the subscription just for the character builder. If not for the character builder, it would be impractical for our group to continue playing fourth edition. My question is this: Will it be possible for more than
Our gaming group chips in to afford the subscription just for the character builder. If not for the character builder, it would be impractical for our group to continue playing fourth edition. My question is this: Will it be possible for more than one of us to be logged in to use the character builder simultaneously? If not that would be a huge inconvienience to our group. Thank You.
Currently that can lead to crashes. Trevor has indicated that this sort of activity will not be supported.
Currently that can lead to crashes. Trevor has indicated that this sort of activity will not be supported.
as a side note i was able to get the excaped slave theme to load just fine with all it fluff and crunch in the old cb, so add to the list of lies that the old cb couldent support themes
it not olny supports them but has the data for them loaded as of the last update.
o and u can use the old cb sheats now to =) just copy the info in the debug tab and make a new dnd4 file and load that with the old cb.
here download this if you want a copy of the online cb on your hard drive.media.wizards.com/downloads/dnd/Characte...as a side note i was able to get the excaped slave theme to load just fine with all it fluff and crunch in the old cb, so add to the
as a side note i was able to get the excaped slave theme to load just fine with all it fluff and crunch in the old cb, so add to the list of lies that the old cb couldent support themes
it not olny supports them but has the data for them loaded as of the last update.
o and u can use the old cb sheats now to =) just copy the info in the debug tab and make a new dnd4 file and load that with the old cb.
Major, Major, MAJOR disappointment. Doesn't work in Moonlight. LOTS of D&D players are Linux users. Tiny over all percentage, but in the D&D world, it's a big chunk!
Silverlight itself is only transitional technology anyway - Microsoft is concentrating more on HTML5 (which effetively makes both flash and silverlight totally obsolete). Afte Silverlight 4, I'd be surprised if MS doesn't drop it completely. Then Wizards .NET code monkeys will have to find another way to make a product that doesn't work on 30% of D&D players' computers.
Major, Major, MAJOR disappointment. Doesn't work in Moonlight. LOTS of D&D players are Linux users. Tiny over all percentage, but in the D&D world, it's a big chunk! Silverlight itself is only transitional technology anyway - Microsoft is concentrati
Microsoft is concentrating more on HTML5 (which effetively makes both flash and silverlight totally obsolete).
Really? What's your source for this. I would be interested in reading up on that information.
I heard it on the D&D Podcast when they interviewed the Developer. That this was their bridge-gap as they began working on bringing this all into HTML5 - which is why they chose silverlight - it should export easily when the time comes.
Really? What's your source for this. I would be interested in reading up on that information.[/quote]I heard it on the D&D Podcast when they interviewed the Developer. That this was their bridge-gap as they began working on bringing this all into H
As for my "30%" Linux claim - that is from my highly scientific method of asking around the office BUT do a google search for "linux users dungeons and dragons" and you'll find LOTS of evidence of the existence of lots and LOTS of individuals who are highly enthused about D&D and Linux & would soil their drawers if Wizards started supporting open-source programmes.
But that's not the most significant problem... As Wizards continues with computer game development, I hope they (like Atari, and Blizzard) realise that though Linux users make up only 5% of end users in the United States, those users are technology experts, every one. It seems woefully short-sighted to shut them out.
Open source software represents the community-oriented spirit that is responsible for the survival of P&P games through the video game age; will become even more important as video game technology continues to make great leaps forward. Using platform restrictive tools like .net saves money initially, but I think it's going to hurt us all in the end due to opaque development practises and shutting out of the most highly tech-savvy segment of their supporters.
Really? What's your source for this. I would be interested in reading up on that information.[/quote]html_removed Below is one of many articles which supports the statement that MS needs to worry more about html5 than SL. "Microsoft server presiden
Microsoft is concentrating more on HTML5 (which effetively makes both flash and silverlight totally obsolete).
Really? What's your source for this. I would be interested in reading up on that information.
I saw this too, microsoft made a statement a few weeks back. Just before the CB came out acctually. It was the source of many poo poos about silverlight in the CB. They didn't drop it, but they seem to be focusing on making HTML5 the cross platform solution. Having many years of reading this kind of spin under my belt I think silverlight has about 2 years life left in it.
4Really? What's your source for this. I would be interested in reading up on that information.[/quote]I saw this too, microsoft made a statement a few weeks back. Just before the CB came out acctually. It was the source of many poo poos about silve
Aye. That's what I thought people were getting at. The reports of Silverlight's demise are greatly exaggerated. They will coexist. This was Bob Muglia, post PDC:
Anyhow, there are plenty of other sites out there that discuss Silverlight vs. X. It's been discussed here ad nauseum, too. The conversations never really lead anywhere, though. When it's all said and done, it doesn't really matter.
The problem with the CB has nothing to do with Silverlight.
Aye. That's what I thought people were getting at. The reports of Silverlight's demise are greatly exaggerated. They will coexist. This was Bob Muglia, post PDC:team.silverlight.net/announcement/pdc-an...If it succeeds, great. If it fails, great
The problem with the CB has nothing to do with Silverlight.
This.
In that hands of an artist a chunk of marble can become a fantastic statue. In the hands of a novice the same chunk of marble will just be a stone paperweight.
Now you can argue all you want that you prefer ivory over marble, but the medium is not really the issue.
This.In that hands of an artist a chunk of marble can become a fantastic statue. In the hands of a novice the same chunk of marble will just be a stone paperweight. Now you can argue all you want that you prefer ivory over marble, but the medium is
Aye. That's what I thought people were getting at. The reports of Silverlight's demise are greatly exaggerated. They will coexist. This was Bob Muglia, post PDC:
Anyhow, there are plenty of other sites out there that discuss Silverlight vs. X. It's been discussed here ad nauseum, too. The conversations never really lead anywhere, though. When it's all said and done, it doesn't really matter.
.
What happens though is it gets around that SL is going the way of the dodo and people start giving more credo to HTML5. Why take the chance when so many are behind HTML5? So then it just fades our except for a few hard cores. There are people are there that still use PowerBuilder, ColdFusion, and Visual Basic 6. It does not that make it a good platform to be with long term because support goes away and bug fixes for new browsers, and OS's stop coming.
The problem with the CB has nothing to do with Silverlight
I agree, the problem is they don't know what thier doing. I just felt Silverlight was a bad choice of platform, esspecially after all the hub-bub going on in the IT community over HTML5 and Flash.
What happens though is it gets around that SL is going the way of the dodo and people start giving more credo to HTML5. Why take the chance when so many are behind HTML5? So then it just fades our except for a few hard cores. There are people are the
The problem with the CB has nothing to do with Silverlight.
Tell that to all the people who want to be able to generate characters on linux, iPad, iPhone, Android, WebOS, etc.... I don't understand why Wizards feels the need to throw up such road blocks.
Tell that to all the people who want to be able to generate characters on linux, iPad, iPhone, Android, WebOS, etc.... I don't understand why Wizards feels the need to throw up such road blocks.
Tell that to all the people who want to be able to generate characters on linux, iPad, iPhone, Android, WebOS, etc.... I don't understand why Wizards feels the need to throw up such road blocks.
But you never could do that with the old CB either.
I agree that Silverlight wasn't the best choice but that has nothing to do with why this builder is garbage.
But you never could do that with the old CB either.I agree that Silverlight wasn't the best choice but that has nothing to do with why this builder is garbage.
Tell that to all the people who want to be able to generate characters on linux, iPad, iPhone, Android, WebOS, etc.... I don't understand why Wizards feels the need to throw up such road blocks.
But you never could do that with the old CB either.
I agree that Silverlight wasn't the best choice but that has nothing to do with why this builder is garbage.
Fair enough, I didn't realize it was a comment whose scope was limited to new CB vs old CB.
Lets just call the Silverlight choice extra 'garbage' especially when one of their stated goals for the new CB was cross-platform compatibility. They had a chance to create a truly cross-platform tool and chose not to. I still don't understand their reasoning.
But you never could do that with the old CB either.I agree that Silverlight wasn't the best choice but that has nothing to do with why this builder is garbage.[/quote]Fair enough, I didn't realize it was a comment whose scope was limited to new CB vs
Fair enough, I didn't realize it was a comment whose scope was limited to new CB vs old CB.
Lets just call the Silverlight choice extra 'garbage' especially when one of their stated goals for the new CB was cross-platform compatibility. They had a chance to create a truly cross-platform tool and chose not to. I still don't understand their reasoning.
I think it was something along the lines of "Silverlight will make this a really easy port, Java would force us to rewrite a bunch of stuff."
I mean that less in the lazy sense and more in the if-I-had-three-more-months-to-work-on-this sense. Whether that justifies their decision or not, I can't say. All I can say is that in a perfect world, I'd have prefered this to be truly cross-platform. But in a perfect world I'd have prefered it to be good, too.
I think it was something along the lines of "Silverlight will make this a really easy port, Java would force us to rewrite a bunch of stuff."I mean that less in the lazy sense and more in the if-I-had-three-more-months-to-work-on-this sense. Whether
I think it was something along the lines of "Silverlight will make this a really easy port, Java would force us to rewrite a bunch of stuff."
Port to what? A web app? One of Wizards' stated goals of going to a web app was for cross-platform compatibility INCLUDING mobile devices. In light of that, Silverlight was more than just a poor choice, it was an epic fail.
But anyway, I think you and I agree though perhaps to different degrees. The new CB is broken in many ways and does not even provide a reasonable replacement for the old CB let alone achieve their stated goals for this effort.
Count me as disappointed.
Port to what? A web app? One of Wizards' stated goals of going to a web app was for cross-platform compatibility INCLUDING mobile devices. In light of that, Silverlight was more than just a poor choice, it was an epic fail. But anyway, I think you an
Classically, one way you get new people playing the game is at conventions. I run D&D 4E at conventions, but my playing habits cover a gamut of other games, so a subscription isn't something cost-effective for me. Why should I pay $100+ for a subscription to something I only run for other people twice a year?
Even putting that aside (let's say somebody lets me use their subscription to do my thing, even though that may be against the Ts & Cs as I understand them), how am I supposed to use the online Character Builder at a Con? The last time I asked about wifi support on the Con floor, the organizer informed me the hotel wanted $500 to open their wifi access to the floor I was running on. This is just not in the cards for a small regional Con that can barely afford to run it as a labor of love. Since I live local, I don't get a hotel room and won't get one just to have wifi access that way.
I don't know that the pricing structure was thoroughly thought-out.
Classically, one way you get new people playing the game is at conventions. I run D&D 4E at conventions, but my playing habits cover a gamut of other games, so a subscription isn't something cost-effective for me. Why should I pay $100+ for a subscri
Classically, one way you get new people playing the game is at conventions. I run D&D 4E at conventions, but my playing habits cover a gamut of other games, so a subscription isn't something cost-effective for me. Why should I pay $100+ for a subscription to something I only run for other people twice a year?
Even putting that aside (let's say somebody lets me use their subscription to do my thing, even though that may be against the Ts & Cs as I understand them), how am I supposed to use the online Character Builder at a Con? The last time I asked about wifi support on the Con floor, the organizer informed me the hotel wanted $500 to open their wifi access to the floor I was running on. This is just not in the cards for a small regional Con that can barely afford to run it as a labor of love. Since I live local, I don't get a hotel room and won't get one just to have wifi access that way.
I don't know that the pricing structure was thoroughly thought-out.
Do like everyone else and just hang out in the McDonald's parking lot...lol
Do like everyone else and just hang out in the McDonald's parking lot...lol
The problem with the CB has nothing to do with Silverlight.
Except that silverlight only works on Mac and Windowz...
That's not a problem, that's a limitation. Most certainly you understand the difference, being in development yourself.
Except that silverlight only works on Mac and Windowz...[/quote]That's not a problem, that's a limitation. Most certainly you understand the difference, being in development yourself.
Only proof of concept stage, but it looks like you *can* get Silverlight on the iPad.
Except that silverlight only works on Mac and Windowz...[/quote]A google of "Silverlight on iPad" gave me this:www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AOvLrohmNYOnly proof of concept stage, but it looks like you *can* get Silverlight on the iPad.
The problem with the so-called flash/silverlight on iPad "solutions" is that thus far, they are not really running them on the iPad. What is happening is that you are connecting to their company's servers, and their servers are accessing the websites you want, uploading the flash, then re-encoding it into a visual display and sending it back to the iPad. The iPad is not running flash, their servers are. You are basically being given a window into their server's work rather than actually running the applications, like a watered down Remote Desktop application. The result is a loss in usability for many flash/silverlight apps, as well as a massive lag as the data has to be sent to another computer and then re-encoded and sent to your device.
Most (if not all) companies that provide this "iPad Flash/Silverlight Service" require a subscription in addition to the purchase price because you are using their personal servers anytime you want to use this feature.
This is equally a fault of Apple not allowing support for Flash/Silverlight, a fact that I am eternally irritated by. I love my iPad, but I hate that Apple thinks I should only use what they deem acceptable, even though there is no valid reason for their denial of support. It certainly isn't a legal issue, and its not a hardware issue either (the iPad is fully capable hardware wise of running it).
The problem with the so-called flash/silverlight on iPad "solutions" is that thus far, they are not really running them on the iPad. What is happening is that you are connecting to their company's servers, and their servers are accessing the website
This is equally a fault of Apple not allowing support for Flash/Silverlight, a fact that I am eternally irritated by. I love my iPad, but I hate that Apple thinks I should only use what they deem acceptable, even though there is no valid reason for their denial of support. It certainly isn't a legal issue, and its not a hardware issue either (the iPad is fully capable hardware wise of running it).
This has been Apple's underlying issue for decades. And this is why I completely avoid any technology that has no interest in becoming "mainstream."
This has been Apple's underlying issue for decades. And this is why I completely avoid any technology that has no interest in becoming "mainstream."
Agreed. I don't own many apple products for this exact reason as well. Don't have an iPhone, a Mac computer, etc. I have some special reasons for the iPad, but I am certainly not without gripes >_>
Also, I love your sig XD
Agreed. I don't own many apple products for this exact reason as well. Don't have an iPhone, a Mac computer, etc. I have some special reasons for the iPad, but I am certainly not without gripes >_>Also, I love your sig XD
Agreed. I don't own many apple products for this exact reason as well. Don't have an iPhone, a Mac computer, etc. I have some special reasons for the iPad, but I am certainly not without gripes >_>
Also, I love your sig XD
LOL, thank you.
Yeah, Apple has always been the proverbial bull in a china shop. If you want to use their products (which for the most part are good quality), you have to do it their way. That type of mentality does not really adhere to offering convenience to the consumer.
Kind of reminds you of a certain OGL vs. GSL.
LOL, thank you. :)Yeah, Apple has always been the proverbial bull in a china shop. If you want to use their products (which for the most part are good quality), you have to do it their way. That type of mentality does not really adhere to offering
The problem with the CB has nothing to do with Silverlight.
Except that silverlight only works on Mac and Windowz...
That's not a problem, that's a limitation. Most certainly you understand the difference, being in development yourself.
for the developers that's a "limitation" for the customers (well a lot of vocal customers on these forums) that's a "problem"...
Except that silverlight only works on Mac and Windowz...[/quote]That's not a problem, that's a limitation. Most certainly you understand the difference, being in development yourself.[/quote]for the developers that's a "limitation" for the customers
Rewrote this a couple of times, worried about getting a suspension or a ban or something. I will settle on this:
I was considering buying a D&DI subscription, now I definitely will not. I find this decision disappointing and insulting. I promise not to purchase any web content from WOTC in future. Not like you care, really, I'm only one guy.
Well.Rewrote this a couple of times, worried about getting a suspension or a ban or something. I will settle on this:I was considering buying a D&DI subscription, now I definitely will not. I find this decision disappointing and insulting. I promi
zerotwo, I'm with you. The way I see it, this was a way to make sure people carry a constant subscription rather than renewing one month a year to download updates. That's not a problem from the business end of things, as far as I can see.
HOWEVER, even the 12 month subscription is, in my opinion, grossly overpriced, especially since few of the promised tools are any more than that, just promises. The tools that do exist are glitchy and often difficult to use. The old CB did work well, but was not nearly enough to justify the monthly fee. That's why I was one of those people who renewed one month a year. As with you, zerotwo, I will no no longer be doing even that.
This is another in the seemingly growing laundry list of things that are causing me to lose my love for WotC and 4e...and believe me, I am not a casual hater. I was one of the only ones in my gaming groups to eagerly await the launch of 4e, and I worked hard to get my groups to adopt. Now I feel like the tables have turned and I'm looking longingly back at 3.5 (or sideways at Pathfinder) and wondering what went wrong.
zerotwo, I'm with you. The way I see it, this was a way to make sure people carry a constant subscription rather than renewing one month a year to download updates. That's not a problem from the business end of things, as far as I can see.HOWEVER,
I have said from the very beginning that this service is overpriced for what it is. Keep in mind, however, that Wizards is not gonna have it go down anytime soon. They still think that the Dragon/Dungeon mags are still worth a major portion of the price for this service.
It's worth just went down several notches with this colosal blunder, and the mags are not making up the difference.
I have said from the very beginning that this service is overpriced for what it is. Keep in mind, however, that Wizards is not gonna have it go down anytime soon. They still think that the Dragon/Dungeon mags are still worth a major portion of the pr
I know as a consumer I shouldn't care about this but despite the fact that the articles may not appeal to you, they must cost quite a bit of money to produce.
I know as a consumer I shouldn't care about this but despite the fact that the articles may not appeal to you, they must cost quite a bit of money to produce.
It costs, but the price for the service, current price points and the supposed correct lower price, more than covers that cost. If the mags was more focused on supporting the books instead of having a lot of editorials or previews that would serve better being on the free side of the web site (and divorced from the Mags).
Dungeon need more than crawls, and truly the two mags need to be put together again. The only way to keep the split is to return them to the newstand.
No, cost of the mags is not a reason for the price of the service to be so high.
It costs, but the price for the service, current price points and the supposed correct lower price, more than covers that cost. If the mags was more focused on supporting the books instead of having a lot of editorials or previews that would serve be
Do you know how much they cost? Where did you get this information?
Let me put it to you: A standard magazine cover price is between $5 and $10 and is also supported by ads. Online has less overhead for sure but it also doesn't get income from ads. It also has less content online but you get two mags with a DDI sub plus compendium usage plus the cb (which admittedly doesn't work too well atm).
I'd say it's a wash. I honestly don't think the price is super high. Once they get the VTT up (if it's included in the price of DDI) and the CB/AT are humming along again it will be a steal.
Do you know how much they cost? Where did you get this information?Let me put it to you: A standard magazine cover price is between $5 and $10 and is also supported by ads. Online has less overhead for sure but it also doesn't get income from ads. It
Let me put it to you: A standard magazine cover price is between $5 and $10 and is also supported by ads. Online has less overhead for sure but it also doesn't get income from ads.
I think you got that the wrong way around; an online magazine likely has the same (or similar) overheads to a print magazine, but it has far lower production costs (approximately zero). This is why selling at a lower price and aiming for higher volume is a rational strategy for online publications - any money you get is operating profit to set against overheads and the 'base price' for competitive baseline product is the marginal cost (i.e. nil).
I think you got that the wrong way around; an online magazine likely has the same (or similar) overheads to a print magazine, but it has far lower production costs (approximately zero). This is why selling at a lower price and aiming for higher volu
Do you know how much they cost? Where did you get this information?
Let me put it to you: A standard magazine cover price is between $5 and $10 and is also supported by ads. Online has less overhead for sure but it also doesn't get income from ads. It also has less content online but you get two mags with a DDI sub plus compendium usage plus the cb (which admittedly doesn't work too well atm).
I'd say it's a wash. I honestly don't think the price is super high. Once they get the VTT up (if it's included in the price of DDI) and the CB/AT are humming along again it will be a steal.
I don't know about you but zombie don't pay monthlys for betas and their never gunna get vtt up. Also most people only play like once a week (if that) and all your really paying for is cb so if it takes 1-2 months to lvl your paying 70 bucks for any where from 12-24 hours of total use. (unless you opt characters all the time wich is boring without having a game to play them in.)
I don't know about you but zombie don't pay monthlys for betas and their never gunna get vtt up.Also most people only play like once a week (if that) and all your really paying for is cb so if it takes 1-2 months to lvl your paying 70 bucks for any w
Do you know how much they cost? Where did you get this information?
Let me put it to you: A standard magazine cover price is between $5 and $10 and is also supported by ads. Online has less overhead for sure but it also doesn't get income from ads. It also has less content online but you get two mags with a DDI sub plus compendium usage plus the cb (which admittedly doesn't work too well atm).
I'd say it's a wash. I honestly don't think the price is super high. Once they get the VTT up (if it's included in the price of DDI) and the CB/AT are humming along again it will be a steal.
I don't know about you but zombie don't pay monthlys for betas and their never gunna get vtt up. Also most people only play like once a week (if that) and all your really paying for is cb so if it takes 1-2 months to lvl your paying 70 bucks for any where from 12-24 hours of total use. (unless you opt characters all the time wich is boring without having a game to play them in.)
I agree. The only thing that would make a DDi sub worth $10.00 a month would be the VT. That's if they can get a proper matching service up and running...
I don't know about you but zombie don't pay monthlys for betas and their never gunna get vtt up.Also most people only play like once a week (if that) and all your really paying for is cb so if it takes 1-2 months to lvl your paying 70 bucks for any w
I agree. The only thing that would make a DDi sub worth $10.00 a month would be the VT. That's if they can get a proper matching service up and running...
I've often wondered how many people would really just play a pick-up game with a bunch of strangers (it is something I won't do and have no interest in, personally), but fortunately for WotC, the "random pickup game" model appeared to work in Encounters. So if they get a matching service running, it'll be a powerful draw (assuming all the other stuff is also finished, like integration).
Otherwise, the VT is a nice freebie to throw in to the subscription.
I've often wondered how many people would really just play a pick-up game with a bunch of strangers (it is something I won't do and have no interest in, personally), but fortunately for WotC, the "random pickup game" model appeared to work in Encount
Do you know how much they cost? Where did you get this information?
Let me put it to you: A standard magazine cover price is between $5 and $10 and is also supported by ads. Online has less overhead for sure but it also doesn't get income from ads. It also has less content online but you get two mags with a DDI sub plus compendium usage plus the cb (which admittedly doesn't work too well atm).
I'd say it's a wash. I honestly don't think the price is super high. Once they get the VTT up (if it's included in the price of DDI) and the CB/AT are humming along again it will be a steal.
I don't know about you but zombie don't pay monthlys for betas and their never gunna get vtt up. Also most people only play like once a week (if that) and all your really paying for is cb so if it takes 1-2 months to lvl your paying 70 bucks for any where from 12-24 hours of total use. (unless you opt characters all the time wich is boring without having a game to play them in.)
I pay for the magazine articles and the compendium which I use very regularly. Since I DM mostly, I only use the CB for testing purposes and to dream of a day when I can maybe play in a group instead of DMing it (perhaps on VTT).
Also who is "Zombie"? Is this some person you know?
I don't know about you but zombie don't pay monthlys for betas and their never gunna get vtt up.Also most people only play like once a week (if that) and all your really paying for is cb so if it takes 1-2 months to lvl your paying 70 bucks for any w
Reactions to the screen shots: Pretty, but wont' work at all on a mobile phone device.
Reaction to Silverlight: So much for linux support.
Reaction to Dark Sun: About time! Yay!
There IS a "Silverlight"-ish type plugin for web browsers (ie: Firefox) on LINUX called "Moonlight" but I am not aware at what level of functional compatibility it shares with the original. All I know is that SuSE/Novell was developing it:
(We already know that there IS a .NET equivalent package for Linux called MONO that SuSE/Novell was ALSO working on, that WOULD HAVE assisted Linux users in running the old Character builder, had it been "up to snuff" with .NET 3.5 (but it wasn't feasible yet, as it had lagged behind in standard compliance back to the old 1.x or 2.x days up until recently).
What I can confirm with people is that this new CB definitely does not like Opera on Windows XP with Silverlight 4.
There IS a "Silverlight"-ish type plugin for web browsers (ie: Firefox) on LINUX called "Moonlight" but I am not aware at what level of functional compatibility it shares with the original. All I know is that SuSE/Novell was developing it:www.mono-pr
There IS a "Silverlight"-ish type plugin for web browsers (ie: Firefox) on LINUX called "Moonlight" but I am not aware at what level of functional compatibility it shares with the original. All I know is that SuSE/Novell was developing it:
(We already know that there IS a .NET equivalent package for Linux called MONO that SuSE/Novell was ALSO working on, that WOULD HAVE assisted Linux users in running the old Character builder, had it been "up to snuff" with .NET 3.5 (but it wasn't feasible yet, as it had lagged behind in standard compliance back to the old 1.x or 2.x days up until recently).
I can confirm what TheSpaceInvader said above. Moonlight does not work with the new online CB. Moonlight only supports up to the previous version of Silverlight, and even that version is in beta right now. It does not support the necessary components needed to properly run the online CB at this time.
I can confirm what TheSpaceInvader said above. Moonlight does not work with the new online CB. Moonlight only supports up to the previous version of Silverlight, and even that version is in beta right now. It does not support the necessary compone
Just putting in my two cents. I truly hate this version of Character builder. 1st No subscription and they keep your character. You can't even access it. Better print out before letting sub run out. 2nd Go to con and either pay of internet (if they have it there) or again not changing your character while on site. So when you charact levels on day one you can't use the builder until after the con to up date you character even if the it is a four day con. 3rd no interenet = no looking up how items found work if you don't own WOTCs umpteen $30 books in addition to subscription. No quick search, even with the books. This is truly LAME!!! you guys are truly a greedy bunch. At least you got my money 3 or 4 times a year when I wanted to update my character for a coming con (before, during and after). Now after renewing and learning I can't update the builder offline and that you will be holing my character hostage if I don't pay. I will not be renewing anymore. Thats $40 -$50 lost per year but that is small potatoes to you I am sure you will suck in some folks who can't live without it when they have internet connection. THANKS FOR NOTHING!!!
Just putting in my two cents. I truly hate this version of Character builder. 1st No subscription and they keep your character. You can't even access it. Better print out before letting sub run out. 2nd Go to con and either pay of internet (if they h
Just putting in my two cents. I truly hate this version of Character builder. 1st No subscription and they keep your character. You can't even access it. Better print out before letting sub run out. 2nd Go to con and either pay of internet (if they have it there) or again not changing your character while on site. So when you charact levels on day one you can't use the builder until after the con to up date you character even if the it is a four day con. 3rd no interenet = no looking up how items found work if you don't own WOTCs umpteen $30 books in addition to subscription. No quick search, even with the books. This is truly LAME!!! you guys are truly a greedy bunch. At least you got my money 3 or 4 times a year when I wanted to update my character for a coming con (before, during and after). Now after renewing and learning I can't update the builder offline and that you will be holing my character hostage if I don't pay. I will not be renewing anymore. Thats $40 -$50 lost per year but that is small potatoes to you I am sure you will suck in some folks who can't live without it when they have internet connection. THANKS FOR NOTHING!!!
You sir won the lottery. You were specifically targeted by these CB changes.
1) Don't buy books. 2) Sub to DDI just a few times a year.
CB was never intended to be a replacement for buying the books. Why some continue to be shocked by this I'll never know.
You sir won the lottery. You were specifically targeted by these CB changes.1) Don't buy books.2) Sub to DDI just a few times a year.CB was never intended to be a replacement for buying the books. Why some continue to be shocked by this I'll neve
Just putting in my two cents. I truly hate this version of Character builder. 1st No subscription and they keep your character. You can't even access it. Better print out before letting sub run out. 2nd Go to con and either pay of internet (if they have it there) or again not changing your character while on site. So when you charact levels on day one you can't use the builder until after the con to up date you character even if the it is a four day con. 3rd no interenet = no looking up how items found work if you don't own WOTCs umpteen $30 books in addition to subscription. No quick search, even with the books. This is truly LAME!!! you guys are truly a greedy bunch. At least you got my money 3 or 4 times a year when I wanted to update my character for a coming con (before, during and after). Now after renewing and learning I can't update the builder offline and that you will be holing my character hostage if I don't pay. I will not be renewing anymore. Thats $40 -$50 lost per year but that is small potatoes to you I am sure you will suck in some folks who can't live without it when they have internet connection. THANKS FOR NOTHING!!!
I can view and modify it. I just open it up in the offline cb.
Also, he can access those characters when he resubs for the tools. Not really sure what the point is except: "I want a $10 character builder!"
I can view and modify it. I just open it up in the offline cb.Also, he can access those characters when he resubs for the tools. Not really sure what the point is except: "I want a $10 character builder!"
Where it shows up as house ruled and has none of the information required to actually play the character, unless you've made a character entirely with options already in the CBC, in which case, why are you bothered at all (or, you've done that thing we're not supposed to talk about, but then, the same applies)? So it's useless.
The export feature only gives you a functional character sheet when uploaded to the OCB. For a given value of functional, of course.
Where it shows up as house ruled and has none of the information required to actually play the character, unless you've made a character entirely with options already in the CBC, in which case, why are you bothered at all (or, you've done that thing
Where it shows up as house ruled and has none of the information required to actually play the character, unless you've made a character entirely with options already in the CBC, in which case, why are you bothered at all (or, you've done that thing we're not supposed to talk about, but then, the same applies)? So it's useless.
The export feature only gives you a functional character sheet when uploaded to the OCB. For a given value of functional, of course.
Well, export also allows you to view/print in coopoeration with someone who has an active DDI subscription. So there's that, too.
Still, there's no arguing that the old CB was (is?) more user-friendly, but the model was flawed in terms of protecting an income stream for WotC.
Well, export also allows you to view/print in coopoeration with someone who has an active DDI subscription. So there's that, too.Still, there's no arguing that the old CB was (is?) more user-friendly, but the model was flawed in terms of protecting
Mm, there would have been better ways of dealing with that, though...
I won't argue that point, though I think that ship has well and truly sailed... This whole thing was done poorly - including having the on-line builder start with signficantly reduced capabilities for building/printing characters.
Still, we are where we are, and it's pretty clear that WotC is moving forward form here and that's just the way it is. It's just possibel that, in the end, this might prove to be a great thing in terms of having a VT that can link to your character information stored on-line. I don't anticipate ever using such capability, but I could see where it could be wonderful for some folks.
I won't argue that point, though I think that ship has well and truly sailed... This whole thing was done poorly - including having the on-line builder start with signficantly reduced capabilities for building/printing characters.Still, we are where
Just putting in my two cents. I truly hate this version of Character builder. 1st No subscription and they keep your character. You can't even access it. Better print out before letting sub run out. 2nd Go to con and either pay of internet (if they have it there) or again not changing your character while on site. So when you charact levels on day one you can't use the builder until after the con to up date you character even if the it is a four day con. 3rd no interenet = no looking up how items found work if you don't own WOTCs umpteen $30 books in addition to subscription. No quick search, even with the books. This is truly LAME!!! you guys are truly a greedy bunch. At least you got my money 3 or 4 times a year when I wanted to update my character for a coming con (before, during and after). Now after renewing and learning I can't update the builder offline and that you will be holing my character hostage if I don't pay. I will not be renewing anymore. Thats $40 -$50 lost per year but that is small potatoes to you I am sure you will suck in some folks who can't live without it when they have internet connection. THANKS FOR NOTHING!!!
You sir won the lottery. You were specifically targeted by these CB changes.
1) Don't buy books. 2) Sub to DDI just a few times a year.
CB was never intended to be a replacement for buying the books. Why some continue to be shocked by this I'll never know.
Absolutely, and, you know, I can tell from the tone of his post that he's running out right now to purchase all those books he missed. Not to mention seeing the error of his ways and signing up for permanent DDI membership. WotC shoot, they score! All that extra money coming their wa... what? Oh. Oh, never mind, then.
Fact is, just as TaxeonZ says, what WotC have done is lost $40-$50 a year in revenue. Apparently they feel a principle is worth that loss, despite that the marginal cost per CB was zero. I could say "maybe they know best", but it doesn't sound like rocket science, to me.
You sir won the lottery. You were specifically targeted by these CB changes.1) Don't buy books.2) Sub to DDI just a few times a year.CB was never intended to be a replacement for buying the books. Why some continue to be shocked by this I'll neve
Absolutely, and, you know, I can tell from the tone of his post that he's running out right now to purchase all those books he missed. Not to mention seeing the error of his ways and signing up for permanent DDI membership. WotC shoot, they score! All that extra money coming their wa... what? Oh. Oh, never mind, then.
Fact is, just as TaxeonZ says, what WotC have done is lost $40-$50 a year in revenue. Apparently they feel a principle is worth that loss, despite that the marginal cost per CB was zero. I could say "maybe they know best", but it doesn't sound like rocket science, to me.
Revenue <> Profit. I wish I could remember where I saw it posted here, but someone talked about how not every customer is profitable and that there are some customers you don't want along with a link to the outside reference. I found this: www.philldomask.com/blog/blog28.html While it is not exactly what he was talking about, if I squint my eyes a bit it's vaguely close. The basic concept (as i recall) was that it is not profitable for a company to do what is necessary to have every possible customer.
Revenue Profit. I wish I could remember where I saw it posted here, but someone talked about how not every customer is profitable and that there are some customers you don't want along with a link to the outside reference. I found this: www.philld
Absolutely, and, you know, I can tell from the tone of his post that he's running out right now to purchase all those books he missed. Not to mention seeing the error of his ways and signing up for permanent DDI membership. WotC shoot, they score! All that extra money coming their wa... what? Oh. Oh, never mind, then.
Fact is, just as TaxeonZ says, what WotC have done is lost $40-$50 a year in revenue. Apparently they feel a principle is worth that loss, despite that the marginal cost per CB was zero. I could say "maybe they know best", but it doesn't sound like rocket science, to me.
Revenue <> Profit. I wish I could remember where I saw it posted here, but someone talked about how not every customer is profitable and that there are some customers you don't want along with a link to the outside reference. I found this: www.philldomask.com/blog/blog28.html While it is not exactly what he was talking about, if I squint my eyes a bit it's vaguely close. The basic concept (as i recall) was that it is not profitable for a company to do what is necessary to have every possible customer.
However, in this example, said customer WAS profitable to WotC!
Did his existence add anything to the development cost of the CB? NO.
Did he pay money into the WotC coffers? YES.
So, while your point is valid, that some customers cost too much to keep, it is not relevant to this particular example. Losing this type of customer is a loss in revenue, plain and simple.
Revenue Profit. I wish I could remember where I saw it posted here, but someone talked about how not every customer is profitable and that there are some customers you don't want along with a link to the outside reference. I found this: www.philld
Absolutely, and, you know, I can tell from the tone of his post that he's running out right now to purchase all those books he missed. Not to mention seeing the error of his ways and signing up for permanent DDI membership. WotC shoot, they score! All that extra money coming their wa... what? Oh. Oh, never mind, then.
Fact is, just as TaxeonZ says, what WotC have done is lost $40-$50 a year in revenue. Apparently they feel a principle is worth that loss, despite that the marginal cost per CB was zero. I could say "maybe they know best", but it doesn't sound like rocket science, to me.
Revenue <> Profit. I wish I could remember where I saw it posted here, but someone talked about how not every customer is profitable and that there are some customers you don't want along with a link to the outside reference. I found this: www.philldomask.com/blog/blog28.html While it is not exactly what he was talking about, if I squint my eyes a bit it's vaguely close. The basic concept (as i recall) was that it is not profitable for a company to do what is necessary to have every possible customer.
However, in this example, said customer WAS profitable to WotC!
Did his existence add anything to the development cost of the CB? NO.
Did he pay money into the WotC coffers? YES.
So, while your point is valid, that some customers cost too much to keep, it is not relevant to this particular example. Losing this type of customer is a loss in revenue, plain and simple.
There are far too many assumptions in your position for it to be hard and fast fact. For example:
Did he share his 5 monthly installs?
Would those people have paid $40-$50 for updates? (lost revenue)
His CB (seemingly) caused him to not buy books. Did his (potential) shared updates prevent his friends from buying books? (lost revenue)
Did his use of CB cause anyone to become interested in the hobby and buy books or DDI? (increased revenue)
etc.
In the end without hard facts you can't assert categorically that his money was profit or not.
Revenue Profit. I wish I could remember where I saw it posted here, but someone talked about how not every customer is profitable and that there are some customers you don't want along with a link to the outside reference. I found this: www.philld
Absolutely, and, you know, I can tell from the tone of his post that he's running out right now to purchase all those books he missed. Not to mention seeing the error of his ways and signing up for permanent DDI membership. WotC shoot, they score! All that extra money coming their wa... what? Oh. Oh, never mind, then.
Fact is, just as TaxeonZ says, what WotC have done is lost $40-$50 a year in revenue. Apparently they feel a principle is worth that loss, despite that the marginal cost per CB was zero. I could say "maybe they know best", but it doesn't sound like rocket science, to me.
Revenue <> Profit. I wish I could remember where I saw it posted here, but someone talked about how not every customer is profitable and that there are some customers you don't want along with a link to the outside reference. I found this: www.philldomask.com/blog/blog28.html While it is not exactly what he was talking about, if I squint my eyes a bit it's vaguely close. The basic concept (as i recall) was that it is not profitable for a company to do what is necessary to have every possible customer.
However, in this example, said customer WAS profitable to WotC!
Did his existence add anything to the development cost of the CB? NO.
Did he pay money into the WotC coffers? YES.
So, while your point is valid, that some customers cost too much to keep, it is not relevant to this particular example. Losing this type of customer is a loss in revenue, plain and simple.
There are far too many assumptions in your position for it to be hard and fast fact. For example:
Did he share his 5 monthly installs?
Would those people have paid $40-$50 for updates? (lost revenue)
His CB (seemingly) caused him to not buy books. Did his (potential) shared updates prevent his friends from buying books? (lost revenue)
Did his use of CB cause anyone to become interested in the hobby and buy books or DDI? (increased revenue)
etc.
In the end without hard facts you can't assert categorically that his money was profit or not.
Your insinuation was that this customer was not profitable to keep. I was merely responding to that part of your post, and my point still stands. WotC was getting income from this source with no difference in development or production costs.
As far as your conjecture goes, who knows? But I'll play too.
Let's assume (hypothetically) he did share his installs. Worst case scenario.
No, those people wouldn't have paid for updates because they were getting them for free. If the only guy in this hypothetical group who was previously willing to pay thinks it's not worth the price, the freeloaders aren't going to rush out and subscribe now that Mr. Moneybags has dropped the ball.
Using the CB may have increased revenue or decreased revenue at WotC, depending on his book buying habits and his ability to draw in new players. OK, agreed, revenue went up or down. So WotC may have received more or less profit as a result of his use of the CB. But, nonetheless, it was profit.
If you want to argue about whether this move will make them a greater profit from this customer and his group, go for it, I'll leave you alone on that one.
But back to the point. Because his subscription incurred NO ADDITIONAL development costs and because he made payment to WotC. I most certainly can --and in fact do-- categorically assert that his money was profit.
Revenue Profit. I wish I could remember where I saw it posted here, but someone talked about how not every customer is profitable and that there are some customers you don't want along with a link to the outside reference. I found this: www.philld
Your insinuation was that this customer was not profitable to keep. I was merely responding to that part of your post, and my point still stands. WotC was getting income from this source with no difference in development or production costs.
As far as your conjecture goes, who knows? But I'll play too.
Let's assume (hypothetically) he did share his installs. Worst case scenario.
No, those people wouldn't have paid for updates because they were getting them for free. If the only guy in this hypothetical group who was previously willing to pay thinks it's not worth the price, the freeloaders aren't going to rush out and subscribe now that Mr. Moneybags has dropped the ball.
Using the CB may have increased revenue or decreased revenue at WotC, depending on his book buying habits and his ability to draw in new players. OK, agreed, revenue went up or down. So WotC may have received more or less profit as a result of his use of the CB. But, nonetheless, it was profit.
If you want to argue about whether this move will make them a greater profit from this customer and his group, go for it, I'll leave you alone on that one.
But back to the point. Because his subscription incurred NO ADDITIONAL development costs and because he made payment to WotC. I most certainly can --and in fact do-- categorically assert that his money was profit.
By this logic every customer beyond the FIRST is PURE PROFIT, because each customer beyond the first incurred NO ADDITIONAL cost. I can play fun and games too.
By this logic every customer beyond the FIRST is PURE PROFIT, because each customer beyond the first incurred NO ADDITIONAL cost. I can play fun and games too.
Your insinuation was that this customer was not profitable to keep. I was merely responding to that part of your post, and my point still stands. WotC was getting income from this source with no difference in development or production costs.
As far as your conjecture goes, who knows? But I'll play too.
Let's assume (hypothetically) he did share his installs. Worst case scenario.
No, those people wouldn't have paid for updates because they were getting them for free. If the only guy in this hypothetical group who was previously willing to pay thinks it's not worth the price, the freeloaders aren't going to rush out and subscribe now that Mr. Moneybags has dropped the ball.
Using the CB may have increased revenue or decreased revenue at WotC, depending on his book buying habits and his ability to draw in new players. OK, agreed, revenue went up or down. So WotC may have received more or less profit as a result of his use of the CB. But, nonetheless, it was profit.
If you want to argue about whether this move will make them a greater profit from this customer and his group, go for it, I'll leave you alone on that one.
But back to the point. Because his subscription incurred NO ADDITIONAL development costs and because he made payment to WotC. I most certainly can --and in fact do-- categorically assert that his money was profit.
By this logic every customer beyond the FIRST is PURE PROFIT, because each customer beyond the first incurred NO ADDITIONAL cost. I can play fun and games too.
Actually if we say it took $1,000,000 to produce the CBC, then the first customer paid $10 so the cost goes down to $999,990, then the next pays $10 cost goes to $999,980 and so on and so forth. Until at some point it doesn't cost them anything to distribute it. At $440,000 per month minimum I'm sure they reached that potential within just a few months...
By this logic every customer beyond the FIRST is PURE PROFIT, because each customer beyond the first incurred NO ADDITIONAL cost. I can play fun and games too.[/quote]Actually if we say it took $1,000,000 to produce the CBC, then the first customer
Note that they still have to pay for bandwidth (and I'd be shocked if the bandwidth costs are lower with the new model) and programmers to bug fix, and data entry of new material, so there isn't just one fixed cost, there's an ongoing cost. However, aside from bandwith, there's no cost PER UNIT, no cost for the creation of an individual copy of either model of the CB.
Note that they still have to pay for bandwidth (and I'd be shocked if the bandwidth costs are lower with the new model) and programmers to bug fix, and data entry of new material, so there isn't just one fixed cost, there's an ongoing cost. However,
Revenue <> Profit. I wish I could remember where I saw it posted here, but someone talked about how not every customer is profitable and that there are some customers you don't want along with a link to the outside reference. I found this: www.philldomask.com/blog/blog28.html While it is not exactly what he was talking about, if I squint my eyes a bit it's vaguely close. The basic concept (as i recall) was that it is not profitable for a company to do what is necessary to have every possible customer.
Sure, it can be true that the revenue is less than the marginal cost - and tracking the total, real marginal cost can be tricky. But for a downloadable, digital product I can state with considerable assurance that the total marginal cost is well under a dollar. So, at very least, the vast majority of that $40-$50 is gross profit. This would not be true of, say, a book, where itactually costs money to make the book. There, any customer paying less than the cost to manufacture, ship and process the sale for that book is "bad revenue". But for DDI, provided the transaction costs for each subscription plus bandwidth costs are less than the subscription amount (not a big assumption), the rest is profit. That is not to say you have positive net earnings; overheads and fixed costs (development, writing, editing, etc.) still have to be covered - but you don't lose a dime of those if you lose customers. Fixed costs and overheads are the reason "stck 'em high and sell 'em cheap" works - because getting lots of small revenue margins works just as well as getting fewer large ones for covering those costs. Provided the margin (= selling price minus marginal costs) is positive.
Selling the same product at a range of prices (as with yearly subscriptions or occasional subscriptions for DDI) is a well-known marketing technique. For DDI I think it should work very well; the marginal costs is so low and the scope to provide higher-paying customers with enhanced convenience is so great that it seems almost made for it. The CBC seemed to be working fine that way - whereas now WotC offer a pay-for service that is worse in almost every way than that previously offered for less. I can parse no way that it wasn't a daft move. Recent speculation has new game material being published electronically and "debugged" prior to a 'final' version in hardcopy form. This might explain the online CB need for the "current" content - but still doesn't remove the market demand for an offline version with the book content. And market demands have a habit of getting satisfied - just look at recreational drugs (and Prohibition booze before them) to see that.
Sure, it can be true that the revenue is less than the marginal cost - and tracking the total, real marginal cost can be tricky. But for a downloadable, digital product I can state with considerable assurance that the total marginal cost is well und
Revenue <> Profit. I wish I could remember where I saw it posted here, but someone talked about how not every customer is profitable and that there are some customers you don't want along with a link to the outside reference. I found this: www.philldomask.com/blog/blog28.html While it is not exactly what he was talking about, if I squint my eyes a bit it's vaguely close. The basic concept (as i recall) was that it is not profitable for a company to do what is necessary to have every possible customer.
Sure, it can be true that the revenue is less than the marginal cost - and tracking the total, real marginal cost can be tricky. But for a downloadable, digital product I can state with considerable assurance that the total marginal cost is well under a dollar. So, at very least, the vast majority of that $40-$50 is gross profit. This would not be true of, say, a book, where itactually costs money to make the book. There, any customer paying less than the cost to manufacture, ship and process the sale for that book is "bad revenue". But for DDI, provided the transaction costs for each subscription plus bandwidth costs are less than the subscription amount (not a big assumption), the rest is profit. That is not to say you have positive net earnings; overheads and fixed costs (development, writing, editing, etc.) still have to be covered - but you don't lose a dime of those if you lose customers. Fixed costs and overheads are the reason "stck 'em high and sell 'em cheap" works - because getting lots of small revenue margins works just as well as getting fewer large ones for covering those costs. Provided the margin (= selling price minus marginal costs) is positive.
Selling the same product at a range of prices (as with yearly subscriptions or occasional subscriptions for DDI) is a well-known marketing technique. For DDI I think it should work very well; the marginal costs is so low and the scope to provide higher-paying customers with enhanced convenience is so great that it seems almost made for it. The CBC seemed to be working fine that way - whereas now WotC offer a pay-for service that is worse in almost every way than that previously offered for less. I can parse no way that it wasn't a daft move. Recent speculation has new game material being published electronically and "debugged" prior to a 'final' version in hardcopy form. This might explain the online CB need for the "current" content - but still doesn't remove the market demand for an offline version with the book content. And market demands have a habit of getting satisfied - just look at recreational drugs (and Prohibition booze before them) to see that.
There are three scenarios for any given customer when it comes to D&D content and specifically Character Builder.
1) Buy the books and DDI sub 2) Books only 3) DDI only [optional] 4) DDI only, but not a continuous sub
Because DDI is just another delivery method for their IP the cost of DDI isn't just bandwidth, development, and servers. You also have to include IP development costs. Their old model was basically buy the books ($30-$40 a pop) or buy them all for $10. So for $10 you are paying for the development of every player (and monster) book ever released for 4e (2 years worth of products). It was a steal and they were losing their shirts (your assertion about a $1 marginal cost is laughable). Their new "smarter" model is you can now buy for $30-$40 a book the same as before or you can RENT everything for $10. This model at least has incentives for going either way whereas before if you actually bought the books you were being foolish (from a cost perspective).
I'm not saying there was no profit, but I'm sure not agreeing with the other extreme where all but $1 was profit. It's just not as simple as people are trying to make it out to be.
Sure, it can be true that the revenue is less than the marginal cost - and tracking the total, real marginal cost can be tricky. But for a downloadable, digital product I can state with considerable assurance that the total marginal cost is well und
Revenue <> Profit. I wish I could remember where I saw it posted here, but someone talked about how not every customer is profitable and that there are some customers you don't want along with a link to the outside reference. I found this: www.philldomask.com/blog/blog28.html While it is not exactly what he was talking about, if I squint my eyes a bit it's vaguely close. The basic concept (as i recall) was that it is not profitable for a company to do what is necessary to have every possible customer.
Sure, it can be true that the revenue is less than the marginal cost - and tracking the total, real marginal cost can be tricky. But for a downloadable, digital product I can state with considerable assurance that the total marginal cost is well under a dollar. So, at very least, the vast majority of that $40-$50 is gross profit. This would not be true of, say, a book, where itactually costs money to make the book. There, any customer paying less than the cost to manufacture, ship and process the sale for that book is "bad revenue". But for DDI, provided the transaction costs for each subscription plus bandwidth costs are less than the subscription amount (not a big assumption), the rest is profit. That is not to say you have positive net earnings; overheads and fixed costs (development, writing, editing, etc.) still have to be covered - but you don't lose a dime of those if you lose customers. Fixed costs and overheads are the reason "stck 'em high and sell 'em cheap" works - because getting lots of small revenue margins works just as well as getting fewer large ones for covering those costs. Provided the margin (= selling price minus marginal costs) is positive.
Selling the same product at a range of prices (as with yearly subscriptions or occasional subscriptions for DDI) is a well-known marketing technique. For DDI I think it should work very well; the marginal costs is so low and the scope to provide higher-paying customers with enhanced convenience is so great that it seems almost made for it. The CBC seemed to be working fine that way - whereas now WotC offer a pay-for service that is worse in almost every way than that previously offered for less. I can parse no way that it wasn't a daft move. Recent speculation has new game material being published electronically and "debugged" prior to a 'final' version in hardcopy form. This might explain the online CB need for the "current" content - but still doesn't remove the market demand for an offline version with the book content. And market demands have a habit of getting satisfied - just look at recreational drugs (and Prohibition booze before them) to see that.
There are three scenarios for any given customer when it comes to D&D content and specifically Character Builder.
1) Buy the books and DDI sub 2) Books only 3) DDI only [optional] 4) DDI only, but not a continuous sub
Because DDI is just another delivery method for their IP the cost of DDI isn't just bandwidth, development, and servers. You also have to include IP development costs. Their old model was basically buy the books ($30-$40 a pop) or buy them all for $10. So for $10 you are paying for the development of every player (and monster) book ever released for 4e (2 years worth of products). It was a steal and they were losing their shirts (your assertion about a $1 marginal cost is laughable). Their new "smarter" model is you can now buy for $30-$40 a book the same as before or you can RENT everything for $10. This model at least has incentives for going either way whereas before if you actually bought the books you were being foolish (from a cost perspective).
I'm not saying there was no profit, but I'm sure not agreeing with the other extreme where all but $1 was profit. It's just not as simple as people are trying to make it out to be.
Even if you include the development of new material and all of those costs, it is a diminishing cost as more and more people subscibe to DDi. When you get into the range of $440,000 per month it really is less than a dollar per customer in cost...
Sure, it can be true that the revenue is less than the marginal cost - and tracking the total, real marginal cost can be tricky. But for a downloadable, digital product I can state with considerable assurance that the total marginal cost is well und
Even if you include the development of new material and all of those costs, it is a diminishing cost as more and more people subscibe to DDi. When you get into the range of $440,000 per month it really is less than a dollar per customer in cost...
You really expect me to believe that Wizards has a 90% profit ratio? Even if we look at year subs as $6/month that's (6-1)/6 or an 84% profit ratio? Their stock must be through the roof with all that profit they are just raking in. Wait, what's that you say? Their stock isn't going up like that?
:blink: :blink:You really expect me to believe that Wizards has a 90% profit ratio? Even if we look at year subs as $6/month that's (6-1)/6 or an 84% profit ratio? Their stock must be through the roof with all that profit they are just raking in.
Even if you include the development of new material and all of those costs, it is a diminishing cost as more and more people subscibe to DDi. When you get into the range of $440,000 per month it really is less than a dollar per customer in cost...
You really expect me to believe that Wizards has a 90% profit ratio? Even if we look at year subs as $6/month that's (6-1)/6 or an 84% profit ratio? Their stock must be through the roof with all that profit they are just raking in. Wait, what's that you say? Their stock isn't going up like that?
They are a tiny part of Hasbro. They don't even register D&D on their profit papers. $440,000 per month is a drop in the bucket. at 200% profit I'd doubt the stock would go up a single point.
doesn't matter how much of a profit they are making, if it is any profit at all you get diminishing cost... Its a basic marketing business principle. Which is why everyone is all about jumping on the monthly payment bandwagon...
:blink: :blink:You really expect me to believe that Wizards has a 90% profit ratio? Even if we look at year subs as $6/month that's (6-1)/6 or an 84% profit ratio? Their stock must be through the roof with all that profit they are just raking in.
I'm just pissed that I can't load charcter builder on my Linux OS. They need to put out a work around for this major issue, I can't even download and install the old version.
I'm just pissed that I can't load charcter builder on my Linux OS. They need to put out a work around for this major issue, I can't even download and install the old version.
I'm just pissed that I can't load charcter builder on my Linux OS. They need to put out a work around for this major issue, I can't even download and install the old version.
{snark}The workaround is to buy Windows or Mac{/snark}
But seriously, if they wanted to go web based, Java or another completely cross platform language would have worked great...
{snark}The workaround is to buy Windows or Mac{/snark}But seriously, if they wanted to go web based, Java or another completely cross platform language would have worked great...
There are three scenarios for any given customer when it comes to D&D content and specifically Character Builder.
1) Buy the books and DDI sub 2) Books only 3) DDI only [optional] 4) DDI only, but not a continuous sub
Correct - but to assume that someone doing (4) will (or even has the option to) move to (1), (2) or even (3) when you make (4) unavailable is foolish and delusionary.
Because DDI is just another delivery method for their IP the cost of DDI isn't just bandwidth, development, and servers. You also have to include IP development costs. Their old model was basically buy the books ($30-$40 a pop) or buy them all for $10. So for $10 you are paying for the development of every player (and monster) book ever released for 4e (2 years worth of products).
Of course you have fixed costs of development to cover - but these are not marginal costs or even variable costs - they are fixed costs. The way you cover these is by maximising your operating profit - which is your sales revenue minus your marginal costs. You can increase this by increasing sales revenue provided that you don't increase your marginal costs more than you do revenue. Fixed costs play no part at this stage, because they are fixed, and aren't going up at all.
What you argue may be valid if:
1) The net margin (= sales price minus marginal cost) on the books is more than the $10 every X months from the occasional subscriber (likely, in my estimation), and
2) The occasional subscribers will mostly switch from occasional subscription to full-time subscription or buying the books instead of occasional subscription (i.e. assuming they weren't buying the books as well, before). This seems to me to be highly unlikely.
It was a steal and they were losing their shirts (your assertion about a $1 marginal cost is laughable).
Marginal cost = additional cost to produce one more (copy) of the product. Producing and delivering a download of a file you have on a server costs way under a dollar. There is no other marginal cost in this case.
Their new "smarter" model is you can now buy for $30-$40 a book the same as before or you can RENT everything for $10. This model at least has incentives for going either way whereas before if you actually bought the books you were being foolish (from a cost perspective).
I bought the books and subscribed - and I reckon that I got good value from both. If WotC had offered PDFs at a reasonable price (i.e. related to the marginal cost of the PDFs) I would have bought those, too. Each of those products gives me something different. If I was still a poor and snivelling youth who couldn't see the value of my own time and enjoyment compared to that of money, I might think differently. But, for WotC, getting any money at all out of those poor and snivelling youths has to be seen as a win, compared to them just using torrented versions.
I'm not saying there was no profit, but I'm sure not agreeing with the other extreme where all but $1 was profit. It's just not as simple as people are trying to make it out to be.
Actually, it is. All but <$1 was (and is) operating profit. Sure, you still need to make enough of that to cover your fixed costs (development, marketing, customer service, etc.), but all that doesn't change that the marginal costs are near zero.
Correct - but to assume that someone doing (4) will (or even has the option to) move to (1), (2) or even (3) when you make (4) unavailable is foolish and delusionary.Of course you have fixed costs of development to cover - but these are not marginal
I'm just pissed that I can't load charcter builder on my Linux OS. They need to put out a work around for this major issue, I can't even download and install the old version.
{snark}The workaround is to buy Windows or Mac{/snark}
But seriously, if they wanted to go web based, Java or another completely cross platform language would have worked great...
{snark}My guess is people who use Linux as a desktop machine are used to their stuff not working{/snark}
{snark}The workaround is to buy Windows or Mac{/snark}But seriously, if they wanted to go web based, Java or another completely cross platform language would have worked great...[/quote]{snark}My guess is people who use Linux as a desktop machine are
I'm just pissed that I can't load charcter builder on my Linux OS. They need to put out a work around for this major issue, I can't even download and install the old version.
LINUX: The OS where you get what you pay for. Nothing. {/snark}
Developing in Linux is like a car in your yard on blocks. It just isn't going anywhere fast. Just one programmers opinion.
FYI....the old version never worked on Linux. It's a .NET framework project and Mono(?) just doesn't support it yet.
LINUX: The OS where you get what you pay for. Nothing.{/snark}Developing in Linux is like a car in your yard on blocks. It just isn't going anywhere fast. Just one programmers opinion.FYI....the old version never worked on Linux. It's a .NET fra
Macs run on UNIX as far as I am aware. Linux is a cousin.
If by "run on" you mean "copied tons of ideas from" (which UNIX encourages) then yes.
But don't expect UNIX/Linux programs to run on the mac, or vice versa.
Macs run on UNIX as far as I am aware. Linux is a cousin.[/quote]If by "run on" you mean "copied tons of ideas from" (which UNIX encourages) then yes.But don't expect UNIX/Linux programs to run on the mac, or vice versa.
Just changed my subscription to "manual" and going to let it expire.
I continue to use the old stand-alone CB, and since it's not being updated I don't need to pay Wizards for this crap they're doing now that I am not using.
I used to buy the books too, but stopped buying them when I needed 4+ books to look up how some mechanic was currently being used. Perhaps I'm just a simple man, but I just want to play without having to access the library of effing congress to figure out how to take 3 steps in a given game module.
The old CB was a great source, and I could customize it to suit my needs, and it had all the new items and powers. I can't abide the web version, and I'm disappointed that old CB updates stopped when the web CB came out. I mean, sheesh, update both until the web CB approaches the utility of the old CB. The web CB kills my fun for the game.
I'll continue to play for a while, as long as I can. Maybe even look at the web CB again at some point in the future. But I'm through paying for the privilege of being a beta tester.
Bye, folks. I wish you well and good gaming. I'm indefinitely outta here.
Just changed my subscription to "manual" and going to let it expire.I continue to use the old stand-alone CB, and since it's not being updated I don't need to pay Wizards for this crap they're doing now that I am not using.I used to buy the books too
Ubuntu, Red Hat, Solaris, Mac, HP-UX, AIX, SUSE, Fedora, and many others are all flavors of *NIX or Unix derivatives. While they share many common qualities, Macs do not actually use Linux. This is similar to how many modern languages are derived from the same root language.
Ubuntu, Red Hat, Solaris, Mac, HP-UX, AIX, SUSE, Fedora, and many others are all flavors of *NIX or Unix derivatives. While they share many common qualities, Macs do not actually use Linux. This is similar to how many modern languages are derived f
Ubuntu, Red Hat, Solaris, Mac, HP-UX, AIX, SUSE, Fedora, and many others are all flavors of *NIX or Unix derivatives. While they share many common qualities, Macs do not actually use Linux. This is similar to how many modern languages are derived from the same root language.
Ah, I looked it up and aparently they use their own version of UNIX that was influenced by BSD, sorry for the unfactual info...
Ubuntu, Red Hat, Solaris, Mac, HP-UX, AIX, SUSE, Fedora, and many others are all flavors of *NIX or Unix derivatives. While they share many common qualities, Macs do not actually use Linux. This is similar to how many modern languages are derived f
Macs run on UNIX as far as I am aware. Linux is a cousin.
If by "run on" you mean "copied tons of ideas from" (which UNIX encourages) then yes.
But don't expect UNIX/Linux programs to run on the mac, or vice versa.
Actually a lot of them do. Not the same binaries, but with a simple recompile (if you have the source), or different binaries (if the creator provides them), most do run without problems, especially since the switch to Intel hardware.
Macs run on UNIX as far as I am aware. Linux is a cousin.[/quote]If by "run on" you mean "copied tons of ideas from" (which UNIX encourages) then yes.But don't expect UNIX/Linux programs to run on the mac, or vice versa.[/quote]Actually a lot of them
