Community

Jan 12, 2012 -- 4:51PM, mudbunny wrote:

That is true. However, given the time between 3.5 and the start of the programming of the DDI tools, combined with the rapid turnover at WotC in their digital D&D department¹ I don't count that attempt at tools to actually have taught them anything. They may have learned something at the time, but not getting the chance to apply it right away means that it probably got lost somewhere. In any case, whether you caount it or not, they don't have a lot of experience in managing software development. Therefore, if the mistake can be made, I think that there is a good chance that they made it.

1 - I think that there is the very real possibility that whatever digital tools department they had for the 3.5 toolset got "future endeavoured" after it didn't work, ans so they were essentially starting from scratch with DDI.

Jan 13, 2012 -- 4:52PM, mudbunny wrote:

If it is about how well WotC managed the release and programming of the DDI tools, I have said that they made mistakes, and that most of the problems that we have seen are a result of inexperience in the management and supervision of the programming team. To be blunt, the bit off more than they could chew and they got screwed by the inability of an outside company to present what had been promised.

MB, attempting to redirect here.  As someone who hasn't seen much of DDI from a subscriber perspective, and I'll admit I haven't been paying as close attention lately, most of the problems that I've observed in the past with DDI have been issues that (IMO) stem from poor management.  Given that WotC's inexperience with software development has caused a pattern of failures in the past, I'm concerned about their ability to succeed in the future - especially with a 3rd party involved.  Is there anything you'd like to point out that suggests an optimistic view for DDI in the future?

Regardless of the change in upper management of DDi tools, WoTC has yet to come and change any standing statement about what tools will be in 4E. It has been more tools are coming.

Which conflicts with, The last thing we will bring out for DDi is a VT (if we do a VT). That's what WoTC told us. They needed to make all the other tools first, before they could have a VT, because they needed them in place first. Anyone disagree with that?

So here we are with a VT. And yet at no point has there been a statement from WoTC saying, We changed tracks again, and decided to come out with the VT before the other tools? Or Don't worry, we are still working on the other tools, we just decided to give you a VT now, because we could make it work with what we have. When the other tools are ready, they will be integrated into the VT as well.

No, WoTC hasn't.

Yes plans change.

Guess what, Companies can also lie and misdirect as well. DEAL WITH IT. You can't prove they aren't lying anymore then I can prove they are. And as cynical as that may seem, history and many examples shows us that WoTC does in fact misdirect and play spin.

Just because the CB and MB work extremely well, doesn't mean it's better then what the offline versions did. Working well isn't the same as better.

I mean, why haven't they added new character sheets? I loved being able to have a campaign filter for my players. The item customization on the offline one was more robust.

It doesn't matter if the online CB works, if it lacks features to make it a really useful tool. I mean, rather then being able to send my friends my campaign settings so they can work out their characters themselves, I have to stand there and approve their choices.

It's ridiculous in this age with what software can do, that I can't have those settings, and that I have to watch over my players shoulders. More so because I already had that ability.

I mean after all, isn't that something WoTC tells us is a great thing about all the options they offer? That a group or a DM can decide what they want and don't want in a game? Don't want a particular race for some reason, you can do it!

The fact is, the Character Builder doesn't all represent the spirit of the game in allowing you to make it your own. Which is the very central heart and soul of what DnD is.

As for the upper management being morons. I never said that. I must have missed who did say that.

All support for 4E DDi means is they will keep the tools up and running so long as it makes enough profit. They aren't going to keep making 4E material to add to it, and at best, bugs will be fixed from time to time. Until they "Change plans" to stop doing that.

Jan 22, 2012 -- 8:47PM, Mock wrote:

Jan 20, 2012 -- 10:23AM, Dane_McArdy wrote:

Doesn't it really come down to what they mean by support? What it means to players and what it means to WoTC are going to end up being two different things.

Just try and get WoTC to define what they mean by support. Just letting the tools stay up and run maintenance on them from time to time counts as support doesn't it? But don't you think customers are going to want more then just that?

I'm not sure it matters as much as you might think - Wizards knows that DDI subscribers will stick around when no content is being delivered, because it's happened before. Now, perhaps without the benefit of "soon," people will be less likely to hang on just one more month hoping for that article on Ambidextrous Paladins or whatever, but most subscribers will probably let autorenew just tick along. 

My bet is just making sure the server stays up will be enough for a lot of people.  

Well considering how there are plenty of of people that are still upset that earlier editions aren't supported with new material anymore, I think we are going to see a lot of posts asking for new material simply because they are paying for 4E DDi.