An open letter to WoTC

[chuff80]

I have noticed that software techs are as divided over what programming languages are good and which are not as gamers are divided over which edition of D&D is the best.



Simply, no. The kickstarter is for an MMO, which is a completely different animal than DDI. I love Paizo and Pathfinder, and I'm excited about Pathfinder Online . . . but it's a videogame dude, not a tabletop gaming aid like WotC's DDI. Paizo has no other digital efforts going right now (that I'm aware of), although they have allowed third party companies, such as LoneWolf (Herolab), to create character builders for their game.

Just to clarify, there are two Kickstarter projects mentioned in my original blog post. Roll20.net released a KILLER virtual tabletop. I'm in the closed Beta right now, and it is hands down the best tabletop on the market right now. There's nothing that comes close (and I've played with Fantasy Grounds, Maptools, and others).

The MMO Kickstarter for Paizo/Goblinworks is interesting to me because they're approaching it from a fanbase-up development path. This is classic community development, and the team behind Goblinworks is just killer.

Oh, and I'm counting Paizo's sale of pdfs as part of their digital efforts. There's also a Paizo mobile app, which is a whole other ball of wax.

These two things together, contrasted with the way that Wizards has handled their digital, makes me wonder what's going on at the top over there.

 

[chuff80]

I am also very disappointed in how DDI turned out. It had so much potential, and it just never reached those heights.

But it's not about the particular technologies - they were desperately unlucky in their initial choice of contractors, meaning that their work in progress had to be scrapped after a large part of the budget was spent. Their in-house team was then hit by a real-life tragedy, which further devastated their efforts.

And then, just as it was starting to show results, corporate edict required them to redo those tools that were working right, replacing the existing well-received Character Builder with an online version that took a long time to get back the same functionality.

Now this is interesting.

I've worked in enterprise level software for a while, and companies that are good are usually not 'unlucky' when they pick contractors/vendors. There is (or should be) a thorough vetting process.

Wizards' CTO comes from the banking industry, which has always been far more concerned about securty than user experience. The way that DDI (especially the character builder) was built, to me, seems to echo that legacy.

I did not know about the tragedy on the DND team. That's unfortunate.

 

[Umbran]

I've worked in enterprise level software for a while, and companies that are good are usually not 'unlucky' when they pick contractors/vendors. There is (or should be) a thorough vetting process.

Well, here's another thing to chew on - "enterprise class" has a vague meaning in technospeak. In effect, it means, "suitable for a large business".

Hasbro certainly counts as large. I am not sure WotC did, though, at the time. Indications are that Hasbro allows WotC to handle its own internal affairs, that may mean they didn't have the resources and experience available to properly review the vendors.

 

[chuff80]

Hasbro certainly counts as large. I am not sure WotC did, though, at the time. Indications are that Hasbro allows WotC to handle its own internal affairs, that may mean they didn't have the resources and experience available to properly review the vendors.

That may be true, but again I look at their technology leadership. Simon Blackwell (the CTO at Wizards) has a background is in the banking industry. While he's probably an expert in security, I'm not sure this makes him suitable for developing consumer-centric gaming supplements.

 

[Alan Shutko]

I've worked in enterprise level software for a while, and companies that are good are usually not 'unlucky' when they pick contractors/vendors. There is (or should be) a thorough vetting process.

As I recall, originally DDI was going to be made by a new company spun off from a large enterprise consultancy. So it wasn't an established team with a track record, they weren't familiar with gaming or entertainment, and likely they weren't too familiar with ongoing product development. Most consultancies come in for project work and leave: they don't build and maintain products over their lifecycle. So, when it started out, I wasn't too optimistic at the results.

As for their technology choices: server-side .net seems perfectly fine. But I'm not sure silverlight or java (used in the VTT, iirc) are the best choices these days. It does let you target Macs and Windows today, but limits Wizards from moving their app to Windows 8 in Metro mode. It won't work on Windows 8 tablets, Android devices, or iOS devices. This is a shame.

 

[chuff80]

It won't work on Windows 8 tablets, Android devices, or iOS devices. This is a shame.

Considering mobile is such a large portion of the Web right now, and likely to become even larger, yes, a shame indeed.

 

[delericho]

Now this is interesting.

I've worked in enterprise level software for a while, and companies that are good are usually not 'unlucky' when they pick contractors/vendors...

If you want to read 'unlucky' euphemistically, go ahead. I don't know all the details, so chose to go for bad luck as the cause of the problems rather than incompetence, or even malice.

Either way, they spent a lot of money with a contractor and ended up with very little (if anything) to show for it. And that of course had a knock-on effect on the DDI that we eventually got.

 

[Wayside]

I can understand startups going with the cool new kids on the block (Ruby, Python, node.js etc), especially since many of those languages offer rapid development and they don't have legacy apps that need to be supported, extended or interfaced with. I've done some Ruby programming on a personal project and I can see some of the appeal of it for sure.

Eh, .NET is only unpopular among toy app builders/Web devs. It's actually surprisingly well-thought-of in the startup community at large, especially with recent additions to C# like lambdas and LINQ. Stack Overflow and the entire Stack Exchange network, for example, are built on .NET/C#. It's an insanely high-productivity platform.

 

[crazy_cat]

Everyone who knows anything knows for a fact that BASIC is best.

BASIC? Surely Basic, of BECMI fame, is just another pale imitation of the one true game - OD&D!

 

[Vicente]

As for their technology choices: server-side .net seems perfectly fine. But I'm not sure silverlight or java (used in the VTT, iirc) are the best choices these days. It does let you target Macs and Windows today, but limits Wizards from moving their app to Windows 8 in Metro mode. It won't work on Windows 8 tablets, Android devices, or iOS devices. This is a shame.

It's easy to move a Silverlight app to a Windows 8 Metro app, as both define the UI by XAML. Same with moving towards Android (Monodroid) and iOS (Monotouch).

The only thing you would need to change in every platform is the UI. Which is more or less similar on the web as every device supports HTML5 differently right now.

It is a little more work going the native way, but IMHO native apps deliver usually better experiences than webapps.