No Character Builder Update

[ourchair]

I've said it before I'll say it again:

My (entirely unfounded) suspicion is that there is a lot of project management strife that is (holding) back the digital tools. I don't mean personal wars, but just poor direction and improper resource allocation.

I doubt they even have a code team the size necessary to ensure that the tools can keep pace with the rules updates, let alone the structural changes introduced by Essentials' new builds and the new themes components introduced by Dark Sun.

So, I don't think it's a matter of blaming WotC or blaming the programming team so much as blaming the entire setup that makes parallel development of tools and new rules almost impossible.

Sure, books are worked out in advance and design changes are usually finalized months ahead of the printing/distribution schedule. But I doubt that's even enough for the programmers to keep pace, and they themselves probably make promises to the same departments that make promises to others, all of which, end up being broken.

Here's what it's probably like to work at the DDI Tools Team:

"I want you five guys to work on the Character Visualizer? Can you do that while handling the updates for Adventure Tool and Character Builder?"

"Yeah, but we need a better system for inputting the data in..."

"That's great!"

TWO MONTHS LATER

"So how's the Character Visualizer?"

"Um, we haven't really gotten past the alpha stage?"

"I thought you could do it!"

"Yeah but the DDI updates are a priority and I was trying to tell you we have to hand type in all the new info from the books."

"That's not so hard!"

"And the RPGA materials."

"Manageable."

"And the Dragon and Dungeon content."

"Okay, stop updates on the Monster Builder... and shift priorities to the Campaign Manager!"

TWO MONTHS LATER

"This Campaign Manager is terrible! No one would use an interface like this!"

"Well, Chris does and he's happy with it!"

"Change it!"

"Yeah, Rodney liked it, but then Mike said it sucked. We need an interface we can agree on."

"Are you ordering me?"

"No, I'm just saying..."

"You're all fired! I'm replacing you all with Farmville developers!"

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Sorry to pick on you, CovertOps, but this armchair quarterbacking is driving me crazy. (It's not just you; your post just happened to be handy.) As a professional programmer and consultant specializing in team software development processes, I can tell you it's just not that simple.

YES, WotC should be able to meet their commitments. YES, there are certainly problems with the way they're approaching their software planning. NO, these problems are not unique to WoTC. NO, it's not a sign of management incompetence or miserliness. Without knowing exactly what's happening on the DDI team, there is no way to know what the problem is. The only thing that's certain is that the simplistic amateur-hour "solutions" on this thread won't fix it.

Software development is hard. Really, really hard. Unless you're very careful about taking time for code quality, the same tasks become harder and slower over time. Unless you're very careful about risk management, your software has less than a 10% chance of meeting its deadlines. And once a team gets to a certain size, adding more people slows development down even further.

Software development is hard. Let's go shopping!

I can second the hard to do part. Basically what you'd need to do it perfectly all the time is the equivalent of a CMM level 3 or higher organization. There are about 100 of those on the face of the earth and it costs something like a cool $50 million in consulting fees and just plain hard work to create one.

This may be a grim message for all us 4e fans, but the truth is that for a bunch of people doing a complex customer facing application like CB or Compendium on a limited budget WotC probably hasn't done all that badly. They obviously made most of the classic mistakes, everyone does, but they have delivered some pretty decent products. So the grim message is basically there just isn't anywhere near enough money in D&D to fuel a world class dev team.

I'd guess they're (hopefully) slowly learning, but even that is a rough row to hoe because you're constantly turning over people, management structures change, etc. Even if you pull off some really well done projects the same organization is likely to fail miserably on some later project. Software development is an exercise in controlled chaos, nobody really has it down. NASA doesn't have it down (trust me, I know). WotC? Doesn't and probably never will 100%. They'll PROBABLY get better over time though.

 

[Ahrimon]

Don't get me wrong, I think it sucks. I was really looking forward to playing with some of the new builds and options. But DDI is more than just an update. You still get full access to the compendium, a full character builder and dungeon and dragon magazines. I do hope that they make it up to us in some way though. I just don't think that they "owed" us this update.

Maybe it's all those years of playing wow. I'm just too used to people having a coranary whenever something attached to their subscription get delayed. The reaction over this was pleasently mild here. I don't know if I want to look at the WotC boards...

Armchair programming: It shouldn't be much more than data entry IF the CB was designed from the ground up with flexibility in mind. I don't think they did that though. I can't tell you how many times I've gone back to something I coded under a deadline and wanted to smack myself for not taking the time to do it right.

 

[Mengu]

I think some people maybe overestimate the manpower at their disposal. From CB credits:

Maintenance Team

Development
Richard S. Robinson

It looks like for Launch they had three developers, but only one is credited for Maintenance releases. They also have 2 people for data, and 2 for Q/A (which are actually both helpful and somewhat impressive for this size operation, though I expect they are not full time).

Of course it's possible the credits are wrong, or they may have shuffled around resources to add another dev, but at the end of the day, it's a pretty small operation, and in such an environment, with a pace of one maintenance release a month, there isn't much breathing room, so any overload will easily lead to delays. And sadly, as others mentioned, adding a developer or two doesn't mean you get the stuff done in half the time or a third of the time. Programming timelines are non-euclidean.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I think some people maybe overestimate the manpower at their disposal. From CB credits:



It looks like for Launch they had three developers, but only one is credited for Maintenance releases. They also have 2 people for data, and 2 for Q/A (which are actually both helpful and somewhat impressive for this size operation, though I expect they are not full time).

Of course it's possible the credits are wrong, or they may have shuffled around resources to add another dev, but at the end of the day, it's a pretty small operation, and in such an environment, with a pace of one maintenance release a month, there isn't much breathing room, so any overload will easily lead to delays. And sadly, as others mentioned, adding a developer or two doesn't mean you get the stuff done in half the time or a third of the time. Programming timelines are non-euclidean.

Ok, that could be the explaination. Even if the apps are dell designed if the developer is out sick for a week that could cause significant delays. Two people for data is pretty tight also.
They have dumped out a lot of data over the last couple of months and if (as I suspect ) their data entry is purely manual and the data entry people are not fulltime then that could be the delay right there.

It is prefectly possible that the data entry people have been doing proof reading and stuff like that for the last month and have not had the time to do any data entry.

What they really need in to integrate their tools with the development process but that would be a fairly substancial project.

 

[vagabundo]

They are getting a lot of money from DDI (how many thousands of subscribers are there at last count?) montly, the least they could do if fund the projects properly.

I do expect to get decent content from dragon and dungeon and I do expect them to build on the DDI tools and maintain them. If they are unable to do that they need to expand the DDI software team.

This is their flagship project and should be seen in that light.

I've been a little disappointed with the tools. I mean, they are good as they are, but after a few years I did think we would be further along with the software: I expected more tools and better interfaces, faster and with more flexibility, by now.

I'm still going to sub for a while. I've still some faith that they can pull off the digital initiative. But if we are in the same spot this time next year - same tools with the same issues - I would consider stopping my sub. Very reluctantly I have to say.

 

[Kzach]

You know, I get that software development is hard, I've learned enough about it through personal study and courses to get at least an inkling of the difficulties.

I get that development costs money and that for improvements to be made they may have to increase the cost of DDI.

But I think both of these arguments are irrelevant to this debate.

Why?

Because there is an inherent contract entered into when buying something and when that something isn't provided, then as a consumer you have every right to be pissed off about it.

The fact of the matter is that WotC is selling a product and then not providing the full benefit of that product. If WotC increased their prices, then I would be able to make an informed decision as to whether or not I would purchase it. But this update cancellation has come out AFTER the fact. There was no warning about it. I couldn't make an informed decision. I bought the product in good faith and didn't receive what I paid for.

So whether or not providing the service is difficult or expensive has zero bearing on them promising to deliver it, and failing to. If they're finding it too difficult, then don't make the promise in the first place, and inform customers BEFORE they purchase the service. If they're finding it too expensive to produce, then up the cost to the consumer so that the consumer can judge its value BEFORE purchasing.

I let my sub renew just before the end of last month and the start of this month without knowing whether or not there would be an update. I did so because I had every reason to believe there would be an update as that is the inherent promise of the service. I now am not getting what I paid for, and people have the gall to tell me I'm whining and should give WotC some slack?

No.

 

[Njall]

You know, I get that software development is hard, I've learned enough about it through personal study and courses to get at least an inkling of the difficulties.

I get that development costs money and that for improvements to be made they may have to increase the cost of DDI.

But I think both of these arguments are irrelevant to this debate.

Why?

Because there is an inherent contract entered into when buying something and when that something isn't provided, then as a consumer you have every right to be pissed off about it.

The fact of the matter is that WotC is selling a product and then not providing the full benefit of that product. If WotC increased their prices, then I would be able to make an informed decision as to whether or not I would purchase it. But this update cancellation has come out AFTER the fact. There was no warning about it. I couldn't make an informed decision. I bought the product in good faith and didn't receive what I paid for.

So whether or not providing the service is difficult or expensive has zero bearing on them promising to deliver it, and failing to. If they're finding it too difficult, then don't make the promise in the first place, and inform customers BEFORE they purchase the service. If they're finding it too expensive to produce, then up the cost to the consumer so that the consumer can judge its value BEFORE purchasing.

I let my sub renew just before the end of last month and the start of this month without knowing whether or not there would be an update. I did so because I had every reason to believe there would be an update as that is the inherent promise of the service. I now am not getting what I paid for, and people have the gall to tell me I'm whining and should give WotC some slack?

No.

7. Updates and Patches. Wizards may deploy or provide patches, updates and modifications to the Software that must be installed for the user to continue to use the Software. Wizards may update the Software remotely, including without limitation updating the Software client residing on the user’s machine, without the knowledge or consent of the user, and you grant to Wizards your consent to deploy and apply such patches, updates and modifications to the Software. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Wizards shall have no obligation to provide you with patches, updates or modification to the Software.

This is from the EULA for DDI. It's not hard to find, it took me 5 minutes.
So, no, we're not entitled to a monthly update.
Don't get me wrong, I'm also pissed off that we don't get a monthly update, and I think that if WotC extended active subscriptions by 1 month it would be a class act, but they're under no obligation to do so: if people don't read the EULA before signing it it's not WotC's fault, after all.

 

[Ryujin]

Actually, by that EULA, we aren't entitled to ANY updates, but be realistic here. How many of us would have bought into the DDI, if it was never going to be updated?

 

[Njall]

Actually, by that EULA, we aren't entitled to ANY updates, but be realistic here. How many of us would have bought into the DDI, if it was never going to be updated?

Yes, and it's been updated pretty regularly for... what, 2 years now?
Sure, without the updates the tools would lose a ton of appeal. This doesn't change the fact that WotC is under no obligation to update DDI monthly, so they haven't done anything wrong: delaying a patch is well within their rights.
Now, I agree that updating the CB regularly is a smart decision, because it makes it a useful tool and increases the value of an active subscription; however, this doesn't change the fact that, according to the EULA ( that we've signed and should have read ), they don't have to provide a monthly update: it's just not part of the deal.
We still have access to the latest patch released for the software (the one released in august ), to the compendium and the magazines, so saying that this month we "didn't get what we paid for" is just plain wrong.

I'm as pissed off as anyone else, but let's face it: we're the ones claiming that someone else didn't keep their end of the bargain when the fact that the CB might not be updated every month was made clear from the start.