D&D 5E Why is WOTC so awful at providing digital content?

Dire Bare · Apr 4, 2015

Jester Canuck said:
Yeah, that would have been embarrassing had anyone really cared about Gleemax.

I cared. I mean, the name was stupid, but not any more or less so than other "techy" dot.com services out there. What Gleemax promised to offer, however, was very cool. Sadly, of course, it did not work out.

The VTT wasn't vapourware and was available for many months on the WotC site. No one cared though, since it turned out VTTs are not as popular as expected.

The original VTT was vaporware, it was the second attempt at a VTT you mention (as Shemeska pointed out). However, I'm fairly sure that never made it out of open beta. Despite the move towards perma-beta in game software these days, I would assume a lot of folks aren't interested in being testers. I know I was waiting until the software left beta and formally launched. Which never happened. So, still, vaporware.

And, beta or not, how do you know no one cared? Did WotC announce they were canning the VTT due to lack of interest? I'm fairly certain we were never told why the second attempt at a VTT was eventually canned, but I could be forgetting or have missed the message.

Dire Bare · Apr 4, 2015

Remathilis said:
I was referring to the unfortunate murder/suicide that derailed the original 4e tools. The later tools did get better, but that's a different tale (like how Code Monkey made E-Tools usable)

Ah. Eesh. Yeah. Disappointing wrapped up in tragic.

Most people wanted (and again, anecdotal reminiscing of message boards long since lost) a char-gen program, DM tool, and maybe a mapmaker program on the par with Evermore 88's Core Rules 2.0. People were confused at the project grew and morphed, with 3d maps and monster sounds eating up precious resources that could have gone to making the bare necessities (char-gen, monster gen, map making) usable. Instead, we got crippleware, nearly 2 years after 3e's release. By then, the Mastertool's demo was forgotten and people had either moved on or given up.

Loud people complaining on message boards does not equate with what "everyone" wants.

I think we could probably all agree that (most) "everyone" would love a character generator. But there are many preferences as to how that char gen should be delivered. And would everyone want WotC to stop at a char gen? Or go the full 3D VTT route? Full 3D VTT was were WotC was trying to go, and I WANTED that! I still do!

If WotC starts small with just a simple char gen, then later decides to pursue a "normal" VTT, and then later still a 3D VTT again . . . will all of those layers easily work together, or does WotC have to start from scratch each time? I'm not saying that WotC shouldn't start small, but there are problems with that approach as well.

IMO, there's no easy solution to the "problem". So as much as I am disappointed that WotC hasn't delivered me an amazing suite of digital RPG tools for three editions counting now, I won't armchair quarterback their decisions (not aimed at Rem, just a general comment).

Dire Bare · Apr 4, 2015

SilentBoba said:
But they're choosing none of the above. It's an online world. Asking people to sit around a table for a completely offline game is difficult, but when nearly all of its competitors are online at least in terms of PDF's if not full-blown player aids, that may be asking too much.

You have no idea what WotC is "choosing". All we know is that WotC DID have digital plans for 5E that rather recently fell through, and now they have to reassess and start from scratch. Not having digital tools and 5E PDFs *NOW* is not an example of WotC not "choosing" from existing options.

My hope is that WotC allows existing quality digital RPG tools (like Hero Lab) to license the 5E ruleset, while pursuing a new licensing arrangement for a mindblowing official set of digital D&D tools. I hope they soon start releasing 5E PDFs, as I want a soft copy of Princes of the Apocalypse. But since I have no knowledge of what they are currently pursuing and how they view their business needs, I'm not going to cry on the internet if I don't get what I want.

Remathilis · Apr 4, 2015

Dire Bare said:
If WotC starts small with just a simple char gen, then later decides to pursue a "normal" VTT, and then later still a 3D VTT again . . . will all of those layers easily work together, or does WotC have to start from scratch each time? I'm not saying that WotC shouldn't start small, but there are problems with that approach as well.

IMO, there's no easy solution to the "problem". So as much as I am disappointed that WotC hasn't delivered me an amazing suite of digital RPG tools for three editions counting now, I won't armchair quarterback their decisions (not aimed at Rem, just a general comment).

Core Rules 2.0 was a great piece of software, but it required a separate expansion to make it truly amazing. It took a while to build up to it, but it worked. I can't understand how TSR (in the height of its death throes) was able to make some of the best D&D software in the last 20 years, but Wizards in the height of its Renaissance could not unravel that puzzle and to me it seems like they try to do too much all at once rather than slowly develop a suite of tools over time.

YMMV and all that.

Jester David · Apr 4, 2015

Dire Bare said:
I cared. I mean, the name was stupid, but not any more or less so than other "techy" dot.com services out there. What Gleemax promised to offer, however, was very cool. Sadly, of course, it did not work out.

Gleemax was flawed from the concept. You can't just set out to make an e-community. And WotC has never been a company happy to let people talk about other games and their competitor's products. And the community was already pretty established and fractured following the 3e/4e front of the edition war.

Dire Bare said:
The original VTT was vaporware, it was the second attempt at a VTT you mention (as Shemeska pointed out). However, I'm fairly sure that never made it out of open beta. Despite the move towards perma-beta in game software these days, I would assume a lot of folks aren't interested in being testers. I know I was waiting until the software left beta and formally launched. Which never happened. So, still, vaporware.

Like the early tools, the first VTT fell victim to the licenced partner. I can't fault WotC for the problems with the launch of the 4e tools and am impressed they managed to get them out only six months late.

Dire Bare said:
And, beta or not, how do you know no one cared? Did WotC announce they were canning the VTT due to lack of interest? I'm fairly certain we were never told why the second attempt at a VTT was eventually canned, but I could be forgetting or have missed the message.

I believe they did say it was because of lack of interest. From the talk on the forums, the VTT was poorly managed, the updates sparse, and when it was updated it removed as many features it added. But lack of interest was cited.
I believe the company hired to make the VTT continued it and hosted it on their own. It might still be available.

transtemporal · Apr 4, 2015

Umbran said:
The difficulty of a programming task is not merely about how close to the edge of tech you are. I think you are seriously underestimating the difficulty in making an application 1) Properly implement the rules as written and 2) open to nigh arbitrary house rules. This isn't about edge, it is about data structure design, which can be hairy even on well-understood technology.

I think you're overestimating how difficult this is Umbran. I'm not one of those people that comes on and says "this is all easy, my kid could've done that". I've been in software development for 17 years variously as a dev, tester, analyst and PM. I know what hairy looks like and this ain't it. Seriously.

As far as UX goes, there's UX and then there's UX. UX is "if we get the usability wrong, people might die". UX at the level we're talking about? Well, any shop with a half-way-decent user-centred group could do it. I'm not saying that it wouldn't take some tinkering to get it right, but at the end of the day this is about managing groups with campaigns that have characters for a game system, and if you really want to go nuts, running gaming sessions online with these characters on a VT.

transtemporal · Apr 4, 2015

Dire Bare said:
I hope they soon start releasing 5E PDFs, as I want a soft copy of Princes of the Apocalypse.

I wouldn't hold your breath. Remember how they briefly released some 4e pdf books on DriveThru and then snatched them back in horror?

"What?! Gaming groups don't buy a separate copy of the FR Campaign Guide for everyone in the group?! Take me back to the nice safe land of books!" And then sit behind the walls for a year, brooding over how to make DRM work.

Umbran · Apr 5, 2015

transtemporal said:
I've been in software development for 17 years variously as a dev, tester, analyst and PM. I know what hairy looks like and this ain't it. Seriously.

Appeal to authority? I am mostly known around here for physics, but I am by no means ignorant of software development projects.

The rules as written are not rocket science. But making the system extensible gets hairy, unless you want a development effort any time you add supplemental rules.

And the nigh-arbitrary house rules? Those are a nightmares. "I have a ring that gives me a +6 to Dex, but only when flying...". And every campaign is going to have some of those weird things the GM made up, and doesn't fit. And each time you shove folks out into "just remember to do that yourself" is a place where you limit how good your virtual tabletop (which, of course, should be compatible) can be.

As someone noted upthread, houserules almost call for something like a scripting language. That's not easy to do, and it is less easy to do for people who don't write computer programs for a living.

As far as UX goes, there's UX and then there's UX. UX is "if we get the usability wrong, people might die". UX at the level we're talking about?

UX, at the level we are talking about, if we get it wrong, the product doesn't sell and we are down something close to a million dollars.

Evenglare · Apr 5, 2015

It's hard to write programs for sure, but there are hundreds of companies that do this. Look at the video game sector. They have to make the rules AND program the game AND music AND graphics/UI. It's hard but just about any RPG game dev could do it. You won't convince me that the guys that make the Witcher couldn't do it, Blizzard could, the guys over at obsidian. The way things are now in the VG industry all that is holding people back is the hardware. A game like 5e would be hard, but compared to other great feats 5e would be a walk in the park for a well known developer especially an MMO/RPG dev. Bioware? SquareEnix? Whatever the company that makes Everquest? I'm sure the guys at Retro based here in Texas could do it. Wizards is well known, as is Hasbro. They are the big players in the industry, they should be able to get a well known competent developer to do this for them but they keep choosing to go with unknowns to cut costs and it doesn't work just about every. single. time. Would it take a lot of work? Sure, and many patches im sure. Can it be done? Of course it can, hire competent developers and stop skimping on the cash. If you want something to be great you are going to have to pay for it and should they ever actually pony up the money it would be worth it, I think.

SilverfireSage · Apr 5, 2015

Evenglare said:
It's hard to write programs for sure, but there are hundreds of companies that do this. Look at the video game sector. They have to make the rules AND program the game AND music AND graphics/UI. It's hard but just about any RPG game dev could do it. You won't convince me that the guys that make the Witcher couldn't do it, Blizzard could, the guys over at obsidian. The way things are now in the VG industry all that is holding people back is the hardware. A game like 5e would be hard, but compared to other great feats 5e would be a walk in the park for a well known developer especially an MMO/RPG dev. Bioware? SquareEnix? Whatever the company that makes Everquest? I'm sure the guys at Retro based here in Texas could do it. Wizards is well known, as is Hasbro. They are the big players in the industry, they should be able to get a well known competent developer to do this for them but they keep choosing to go with unknowns to cut costs and it doesn't work just about every. single. time. Would it take a lot of work? Sure, and many patches im sure. Can it be done? Of course it can, hire competent developers and stop skimping on the cash. If you want something to be great you are going to have to pay for it and should they ever actually pony up the money it would be worth it, I think.

All of those games cost tons of money to make. I'm guessing Hasbro is not allotting nearly enough money for WotC to make even something worth 2 million, let alone 10-100 million. It's hard to compare this to the video game sector because video games are vastly more popular than D&D has ever been. While the digital tools might reasonably sell around 50,000 to 100,000 copies (and I think that might be an upper estimate), a recently released "D&D like" game Pillars of Eternity has already sold well over 100,000. Not to mention the Bioware RPGs selling in the tens of millions, Diablo in the millions, Square Enix in the tens of millions...