D&D 5E The shape of DDI for 5e

[IronWolf]

For the total non-tech guys here, what's wrong with Silverlight? And use small words, pretty please.

The biggest thing that sticks out most is the lack of Silverlight support on the iPad.

 

[mudbunny]

I never really understood their decision to go Silverlight, especially with the rise of tablets at the gaming table.

The main reason for using Silverlight that I could determine, is that it required significantly less work to switch the apps from what they were using before to using Silverlight as compared to the other technologies that were available. Also, don't forget that at the time of them planning this, tablets were not very common at the gaming table, and Silverlight has about a 97% installation base (IIRC) on windows/mac-based computers.

It also had the added advantage that it allowed WotC to more easily hot-patch the apps without requiring people to re-download the entire app.

 

[Baron Von Mandrick]

I think I'm in the minority on this, like my affection for 4e, but I love DDI.

I've previously used Fantasy Grounds and Fantasy Grounds 2. It's easy creating characters without flipping through a dozen different books. I use the VT for almost all my games these days, and importing the character is great.

Of course there are things about it I would hope will improve. More tokens, customization for house rules improvement, and things like that will make it even better. I'm not technologically advanced enough to totally get the drawbacks, advantages, or disadvantages of using silverlight.

My hope will be that by the time 5e comes around, DDI will be flexible enough to support all editions of the game as well as house rules. If not using silverlight and switching to html 5 helps with that, I'm all in favor of it.

 

[IronWolf]

The main reason for using Silverlight that I could determine, is that it required significantly less work to switch the apps from what they were using before to using Silverlight as compared to the other technologies that were available.

I could believe there was less work in a conversion. I am not that familiar with the back end to comment much on what may or may not have been required in conversion.

The thing is, the path of least resistance is not always the best choice. When looking at changing technologies there is a myriad of other factors to consider. Sometimes the right choice results in more work up front, but a better solution that is more flexible in the long run.

Technology evolves quickly and decisions on platform need to take that into account.

Also, don't forget that at the time of them planning this, tablets were not very common at the gaming table, and Silverlight has about a 97% installation base (IIRC) on windows/mac-based computers.

True, the tablet increase has largely been a growing phenomenon over the past couple of years. Unfortunately by choices made earlier those choices have really impacted them as technology changed. Now the path of least resistance doesn't sound so good.

Those Silverlight numbers sound wrong, especially for the time the decision to go with Silverlight would have been made. Maybe they meant Silverlight was an option on 97% of the devices out there though not necessarily already installed?

Articles from 1st/2nd quarter of 2010 seem to indicate around a 60% install base of Internet connected devices for Silverlight.

It also had the added advantage that it allowed WotC to more easily hot-patch the apps without requiring people to re-download the entire app.

A web based HTML5 app would not have required people to re-download applications either. And even for apps that do need patching, that can always be done through incremental patching to reduce download size.

 

[mudbunny]

I could believe there was less work in a conversion. I am not that familiar with the back end to comment much on what may or may not have been required in conversion.

The thing is, the path of least resistance is not always the best choice. When looking at changing technologies there is a myriad of other factors to consider. Sometimes the right choice results in more work up front, but a better solution that is more flexible in the long run.

Technology evolves quickly and decisions on platform need to take that into account.

That is true, but there were also numerous other considerations (budget, for one) that were imposed upon the DDI team by WotC/Hasbro that more than likely had a large effect on what they aimed towards.

True, the tablet increase has largely been a growing phenomenon over the past couple of years. Unfortunately by choices made earlier those choices have really impacted them as technology changed. Now the path of least resistance doesn't sound so good.

Nope. But, to plays devil's advocate, I don't think that, when they had to make the choice, that they could have predicted just how fast the market share for tablets would expand. In hindsight, it is obvious. At the time, tablets look very risky and possibly a niche market.

Those Silverlight numbers sound wrong, especially for the time the decision to go with Silverlight would have been made. Maybe they meant Silverlight was an option on 97% of the devices out there though not necessarily already installed?

Articles from 1st/2nd quarter of 2010 seem to indicate around a 60% install base of Internet connected devices for Silverlight.

You are probably correct. I was going off of memory, and my memory is fuzzy on the exact numbers.

A web based HTML5 app would not have required people to re-download applications either. And even for apps that do need patching, that can always be done through incremental patching to reduce download size.

True, but (and I am not familiar with html 5 and various internet standards), but I don't think that it was anywhere near standardized at the time.

*shrug*

WotC had to make a choice based on very limited information, and sometimes those choices were right (DDI in general) and sometimes those choices are wrong (platform), and it is only in hindsight that we can see clearly.

I suspect that WotC will, in their work on DDI for Next, ensure that it can run on iOS devices at the very least, as well as any other number of tablets.

 

[renau1g]

Nope. But, to plays devil's advocate, I don't think that, when they had to make the choice, that they could have predicted just how fast the market share for tablets would expand. In hindsight, it is obvious. At the time, tablets look very risky and possibly a niche market.

I suspect that WotC will, in their work on DDI for Next, ensure that it can run on iOS devices at the very least, as well as any other number of tablets.

It wasn't just them. Every tech company and analyst failed to recognize how fast the market would blow-up for tablets and all the other tech companies (outside Apple) were left (and most case still are) scrambling.

Hopefully they build an iOS and Android OS version to cover the vast majority of the market (sadly I doubt they'll be a Blackberry version, my current device)

 

[IronWolf]

WotC had to make a choice based on very limited information, and sometimes those choices were right (DDI in general) and sometimes those choices are wrong (platform), and it is only in hindsight that we can see clearly.

I agree with a lot of your responses, so I snipped them and am simply agreeing as well that hindsight makes this a lot easier to critique them on.

I suspect that WotC will, in their work on DDI for Next, ensure that it can run on iOS devices at the very least, as well as any other number of tablets.

And this is the important thing. Regardless of past technological platform decisions, they need to put some attention towards tablet users. Hopefully they will.

 

[Umbran]

The point I was trying to make, though, was that numbers on a spreadsheet don't equate to real-world solutions.

You're entirely correct. But numbers on the spreadsheet determine what the company will attempt to do, regardless, because the numbers on the sheet determine what makes sense for the company.

While the financial details can get complicated, the logic is simple - you don't engage in a battle of diminishing returns. If you have to dramatically increase development costs to reach a small extra portion of a small market, that's probably not an economic win.

They need to understand that people will just find another way if the way being offered is a poor option.

Who says they don't understand that? We need to understand that we are, all in all, a *small* market, and may not merit all that much of an expenditure.

 

[Umbran]

Also, don't forget that at the time of them planning this, tablets were not very common at the gaming table, and Silverlight has about a 97% installation base (IIRC) on windows/mac-based computers.

Yah. DDI was announced in 2007. The first iPad sold in 2010.

 

[IronWolf]

Yah. DDI was announced in 2007. The first iPad sold in 2010.

Though DDI didn't switch to using Silverlight until late 2010, right?