November 16th release for Web-based Character Builder

[Markn]

Beyond the continued concerns of the limitation of 20 characters, I'm not sure this thread has much reason to exist any more. I humbly request a swing shut on this one.

If anyone has anything further to add, they could always start a new one.

Just my opinion of course.

 

[garyh]

I'll put my money on the 20 character limit being in place to prevent account sharing. I don't blame them. They want everyone to have thier own account. And I don't blame them for not saying as much. They have to practice as much damage control as possible with an announcment as full of emotion as this new builder.

Except even for that it fails, as that's four parties worth of PC's, if you only use it for active PC's. Plenty to go around. So, really, it's not even achieving that much...

 

[ProfessorCirno]

It would have been more correct had you said:

jbear: I am pretty sure that WotC had to be aware that an announcement of any kind would have a significant backlash on internet bulletin boards. They know at this point there is no way to avoid it.

Then allow me to make another awesome suggestion to WotC:

Don't make stupid mistakes like this.

If you know you have an announcement coming up that's goign to cause significant amounts of strife and will lose you moeny and subscriptions, pause. Ask yourself: Is this a good idea? Am I getting a bigger gain then I'm losing?

Because so far the answer to both of the questions is a giant bolded "No."

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Oh yes, to those wondering why we're upset when "they're going to program export functions," it might be because "soon" is their deadline, and also incidentally still their deadline for the VTT.

Also because there is no goddamn excuse to not have export functioning out when you open the gate. Jesus, how is this difficult? Do not release a product if it isn't yet complete. And not having an export function means it's nowhere near completion.

 

[thewok]

when and if they do implement the export from the new online CB, why not export it in a non-edition-wars-creating filename? Instead of .dnd45e, they could easily pick like .dnd4b or something innocuous like that. If the files are not themselves compatible using the de-facto (at least initially) program used to open them, it makes sense to transition to a new format that has new data and layouts, as a new native file format, with .dnd4e files being an import-only file format.

Keeping file extensions isn't even close to a new occurrence. Photoshop uses .psd. Word used .doc for how long? Excel still uses .xls. Wizards continuing to use .dnd4e has loads of precedent in the software world.

I don't think that the problem is file incompatibility. I think the problem with taking exported files from the new CB into the old one would be that the old CB would have no idea what to do with something called "Knight" or "Staff Expertise." It would not calculate "Lightning Reflexes" correctly.

This is the impression I got from the WotC posters. Same file type, but the content is changed to be updated, whereas the old CB is frozen in time. Once export is supported, things like iplay4e should work correctly. There's no need to rename the file extension because it's the exact same type of file.

 

[Holy Bovine]

Oh yes, to those wondering why we're upset when "they're going to program export functions," it might be because "soon" is their deadline, and also incidentally still their deadline for the VTT.

Also because there is no goddamn excuse to not have export functioning out when you open the gate. Jesus, how is this difficult? Do not release a product if it isn't yet complete. And not having an export function means it's nowhere near completion.

I'll stand by my prediction over on circvsmaximvs of a major crash within 48 hours of launch. This thing just doesn't feel ready for prime time imo.

 

[LightPhoenix]

Also because there is no goddamn excuse to not have export functioning out when you open the gate. Jesus, how is this difficult? Do not release a product if it isn't yet complete. And not having an export function means it's nowhere near completion.

Here's the problem with that argument - all the complaints about stuff not being updated over the last two months. It's a lose-lose situation for WotC. Choice A: Continue not updating the current CB while working on the new one, costing them subscribers/revenue and good will. Choice B: Push out what they have despite missing some features, maintain (some) subscribers/revenue and (some) good will.

Obviously, there is no choice that is do both - that just led to the current situation. It's highly unlikely there was a choice to keep the old CB either; one or all of programming constraints, lost revenue, piracy, and managerial edict dictated the creation of the new CB.

So despite your opinion that there is no excuse, there are in fact there are a few.

 

[fanboy2000]

Also because there is no goddamn excuse to not have export functioning out when you open the gate. Jesus, how is this difficult? Do not release a product if it isn't yet complete. And not having an export function means it's nowhere near completion.

I blame Linux. People have not gotten used to beta testing everyone's programs.

 

[Echohawk]

Oh yes, to those wondering why we're upset when "they're going to program export functions," it might be because "soon" is their deadline, and also incidentally still their deadline for the VTT.

This is just not true. "We are not currently working on the VTT" is hardly the same as "soon".

 

[evilref]

Because so far the answer to both of the questions is a giant bolded "No."

It may be no for you, or to your perception. That doesn't mean it's a 'no' for their business strategy and short/long-term goals.

1) Loss of X percent of customers and income from them.

2) Ill Will from Y percent of customers.

--

A) New customers and new income

B) Easier updates

C) Massively increased security

D) More predictable income stream

E) Easier development of new tools.



etc. etc.

Companies make decisions which their consumers don't agree with all the time. Whether it's the right decision is a long-term, not a short-term view.