Will the WOTC Gametable return or is it dead forever?

[Banesfinger]

D&D Game Table - The Crown Jewel of the 4E sneakpeak at D&D experience in 2007. The most highly touted, advertised, and hype-inducing part of 4E.

If I could go back in a time-machine to the launch date, knowing what I know now:

1 year (almost) after launch and they have only put out the Character Builder with no sign of the Character Visualizer, Dungeon Creator, or the greatly anticipated Game Table.

Like everyone else, we wanted to see what the new edition of D&D would bring - but mainly our group was interested in playing our favorite game remotely (online).

We should have just saved our $ ...

 

[CharlesRyan]

WOW! Talk about revisionism and spin.

From my players handbook, first printing, June 2008: [DDI ad]

So a product was promised on 6 June, 2008, and delivered, in its full version, on 27 January 2009. That's seven months and 21 days late, assuming you give no credit for any pre-final version. So I guess I "revised and spun" by three weeks. Sorry.

[For all of you who keep posting that the CB was "a year" late, feel free to check my math. Maybe I've counted the months incorrectly?]

And I'm sorry to have pissed in your cornflakes, too, but I apparently didn't make my point very clearly. Let me try again:

If your standard for "deliver on promised software" means the product release must meet the date set at the initial announcement, then nothing WotC currently has in the works (that we know of) can possibly meet this standard. So the benefit of doubt cannot be extended to WotC until some new future software is announced and delivered perfectly on time and perfectly according to the announced specs, no matter how good their releases are and how well they stick to any future timeline announcements concerning the Visualizer, Game Table, and related bits.

I simply suggest that maybe this is too high a standard (certainly one very few software producers, of any stripe, have managed to reach); and that instead, you could look at the software they have produced, and the information they are currently providing, and work from that.

You may not be happy with WotC's output to date--fair enough. But regardless, I don't think the point I'm trying to make warrants quite so much vitriol.

 

[renau1g]

So a product was promised on 6 June, 2008, and delivered, in its full version, on 27 July 2009. That's seven months and 21 days late, assuming you give no credit for any pre-final version. So I guess I "revised and spun" by three weeks. Sorry.

[For all of you who keep posting that the CB was "a year" late, feel free to check my math. Maybe I've counted the months incorrectly?]

Corrected

 

[CharlesRyan]

I believe you have a typo there. . .

You're correct. I meant 27 January. It's now correct in the post.

(I should have called for editors, not math-checkers!)

 

[Xyxox]

Does the Character Builder not count for some reason?

It counts as much as E-Tools counted for a replacement to the promised Master Tools.

They demoed the Virtual Gametable in every convention.

They marketed the Virtual Gametable in all three core books.

So the Character Builder counts for almost nothing.

By "deliver on promised software," do mean that the final product must exactly match the initial announcement, in content and timing of release?

If so, nothing they have announced to date could meet that definition. In other words, you will not extend the benefit of doubt until after they successfully release some software that they haven't yet announced. In other, other words, not for (presumably) quite some time at the earliest.

If not, what do you mean? They've delivered the Character Builder. Late, to be sure, but only by seven months, which isn't that long in the world of software. And it's pretty kick-ass; a few people have issues, but you can't please everyone.

See above.

 

[ki11erDM]

damn PO'd if it's abandoned completely, I was really looking forward to playing, using it :/

It is rather obvious that they are polling the community to see where they should put their limited resources, if enough people wanted this then I am sure it will be polished and put out.

Should they have done that a bit better before starting work on it? Sure. All you can do right now is hope that enough other people wanted them to continue spending money on that product to bring it to market.

 

[jgsugden]

It is easy to provide quality products (digital or otherwise) in a timely manner if you're doing repetitive, well-known and well-understood tasks in a well-known, well-understood situation.

Unfortunately, most software development isn't like that.

...

And? If you know that solving a difficult Sodoku puzzle takes you between 5 and 25 minutes, don't tell your significant other that you'll be done with it in 5 minutes.

If you KNOW that you're going to have trouble keeping to a certain schedule - don't promise it. WotC should NOT have 'announced' a timeline of any sort - either implicit or explicit - that it could not be pretty darn sure it could meet.

Software design is often more art than science, but that doesn't mean that you can't put structure around it. If you're going to sell a software product, you still need to face the economic realities of the business surrounding the product. If you think it will take between 2 and 14 months to build something, make plans accordingly. Figure out what to do if it is ready in 2 months, and figure out what to do if it is ready in 14 months.

WotC had a product in mind. They did early development. They brought it to an alpha state BEFORE GenCon 07. They made statements that indicated that they'd have a distributable version of that software in summer 08 at GenCon 07.

Nobody is saying that they didn't have difficulties. Nobody is saying that meeting that schedule wouldn't be hard. (Well, maybe some idiots are syaing that, but that isn't what most of us are ticked off about.)

What critics are saying is that WotC should have been as smart as you - smart enough to realize that there are problems making software and that it isn't easy to get things out on a specific date. If they'd been that smart, they wouldn't have indicated that the product would be available last summer when, as it turns out, we may not even see it this summer.

 

[El Mahdi]

...You may not be happy with WotC's output to date--fair enough. But regardless, I don't think the point I'm trying to make warrants quite so much vitriol.

Fair enough. If what I posted came across to you as vitriol, I apologize. I'm not angry at you or think badly of you. I'm also not angry at WoTC, but I am disapointed. However, in all fairness your post came across as people don't have a right to be unhappy with WoTC and very much seemed as if you were purposely understating how bad they've screwed up. If that wasn't your intention, I also apologize for any misunderstanding.

However, the undeniable fact is: WoTC screwed this up Big Time. This wasn't just some minor goof, or a slightly late delivery. The fact is, almost 8 months after they said they'd deliver this product, barely half of it is up and functional, with the rest expected to trickle out over the next year or so. There's just no way anyone can spin the fact that 1 1/2 to 2 years late (for full release and function) is not acceptable. I will give them credit for what has been released so far as being good to very good quality, which is why I do have a DDI subscription. But, there is only one thing that will fix WoTC problem: get the rest of the applications out and working as advertised. Until then, WoTC is going to have to live with the fact that a good portion of their customers do not trust them to deliver, and rightfully so.

I sincerely hope that within the next year I can post "Damn, took them long enough but this stuff rocks!". But until then, with me and many others, WoTC is in the dog house and will stay there until they deliver.

 

[Scribble]

Fair enough. If what I posted came across to you as vitriol, I apologize. I'm not angry at you or think badly of you. I'm also not angry at WoTC, but I am disapointed.

I will give them credit for what has been released so far as being good to very good quality, which is why I do have a DDI subscription. But, there is only one thing that will fix WoTC problem: get the rest of the applications out and working as advertised. Until then, WoTC is going to have to live with the fact that a good portion of their customers do not trust them to deliver, and rightfully so.

I think that's the thing for me... I can understand people being dissapointed. Wizards advertised and promoted something that looked awesome, and then failed to actually be able to offer it. Dissapointing... I just fail to understand why so many people seem so angry. Maybe it's just the internet effect, and people aren't realy angry?

I could understand anger if, for instance, they asked us to pay for the service, and then revealed that the DDI wasn't what was origionally hyped... But that didn't happen. When I was sold a subscription, I was told exactly what I would get.

Do I trust that they'll end up getting th other stuff out there? Sure, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt, but I wouldn't give them money for it until I see it. IE if they raise the price because they're going to "have the GT up and running real soon!" they wouldn't see me pay that raised price until it actually WAS up and running.

 

[darjr]

Uhhm ... What???

Maybe I'm just tired, but I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say.

Were you asking a question of whether I think successful on time development of software is impossible?

That first sentence, stated as a question, is throwing me off.

Or, are you trying to say that delivering what one says they'll deliver, when they say they'll deliver it, is absolutely impossible when it comes to software?

If so, then I'd say that nothing is impossible (even quality software delivered on time) when one has the necessary competence, discipline, motivation and will for the task at hand. These things hold true for any endeavor, regardless of the subject or field.

I'd also say that it's a very sad commentary indeed, that so many people today feel that meeting minimum standards is considered a completely unobtainable objective not worthy of the attempt (or, as it was stated: Magic Shangri La).

I'm trying to say that I don't think you have any idea what your talking about.

Umbrans post nails it.