An open letter to WoTC

[chuff80]

Revisions to the core mechanics, to me at least, seem a little redundant at this point.

The problem that I see is Wizard's poorly done move into digital. I wrote an open letter about it here.

The gist is this:

- Wizards is building on outdated tech (.Net) and poorly done tech (Silverlight). They missed a huge opportunity with the virtual tabletop and with open source, and those holes are being filled by little startups like Obsidian Portal and Roll20.

- Paizo's efforts in digital, while still nascent, are much more exciting than what Wizards is doing. Their Kickstarter campaign is double-funded, with two weeks to go.

- There's a serious lack of geek culture at the executive level. The C-suite there is full of people from banking, consumer goods, and publishing industries.

All in all, 5th edition gets a big "eh" from me, but the digital efforts of Wizards makes me want to cry.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Moved to General Discussion

 

[Plane Sailing]

I wonder why you would consider .Net to be outdated tech?

 

[chuff80]

Mostly because all of the engineers that I work with refuse to use it. I work at a tech startup, and know a bunch of people at other startups. .Net seems to be the thing you build on when you are forced to make something compatible with Microsfoft.

Granted, I'm not an engineer myself, so my knowledge is incomplete.

 

[nedjer]

Mostly because all of the engineers that I work with refuse to use it. I work at a tech startup, and know a bunch of people at other startups. .Net seems to be the thing you build on when you are forced to make something compatible with Microsfoft.

Granted, I'm not an engineer myself, so my knowledge is incomplete.

Not so much the kit, as how they use it. Comparing the two front pages shows a 20 year gap in page design. The Pathfinder site just takes you straight to the info

 

[Plane Sailing]

I'm an engineer, and I work at one of the biggest online grocery retailers in the world - and we use .Net, it is pretty good for what we need (our application stack also contains a significant java component too, so we are not a 'Microsoft monoculture')

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.

It is interesting that a lot of growth in the .Net framework and c# language has been informed by the popularity of more modern languages (although I've been programming for long enough now that the idea of c# no longer being considered modern seems strange!) - first class support for dynamic typing and asynchronous methods are some of the ways that .Net/c# is growing. Plus of course there are some really interesting new languages based on the .Net framework like the functional language f#.

So while I completely agree with you that Silverlight is probably a lame duck at this point, and should be replaced for their front end, I think that .Net as a back-end system has got quite a few years left under the bonnet

Thanks for allowing me to go on at length

Cheers

 

[Dire Bare]

Wizards is building on outdated tech (.Net) and poorly done tech (Silverlight). They missed a huge opportunity with the virtual tabletop and with open source, and those holes are being filled by little startups like Obsidian Portal and Roll20.

As you've already stated upthread, you don't really have the expertise to say that .NET or Silverlight is outdated tech, you are simply going on what your "expert" friends have said. And, while I am also not a software engineer, 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.

Paizo's efforts in digital, while still nascent, are much more exciting than what Wizards is doing. Their Kickstarter campaign is double-funded, with two weeks to go.

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.

All in all, 5th edition gets a big "eh" from me, but the digital efforts of Wizards makes me want to cry.

I don't pay much attention to those who downplay D&D Next, as the rudimentary playtest, which is only the barest core of the rules, was just released yesterday. If you're happy with your current system and simply aren't looking for a new one, that's fine, of course. But why waste time deriding the new game you aren't even interested in? (I know, welcome to the internets)

WotC's has certainly had a lot of problems with their digital offerings in the past, but the current form of DDI is leagues ahead of ANY OTHER GAME COMPANY. There are third party apps out there for online play, mapping, and character creation, and some of these apps can do things DDI can't (yet), but none collectively offer what DDI does . . . assuming you play D&D 4e (and if you don't, then why are you wasting mental effort bashing something you don't use?). WotC has had some serious setbacks, but they have also put out more risk and tried for much more than other game companies have. Mostly because they own D&D and have the resources other companies don't, but still, I so tire of folks armchair quarterbacking WotC's efforts with such derision, and well, ignorance.

Will D&D Next be the game for me? I don't know yet, I may playtest, I will certainly keep an eye on how the playtest and subsequent development goes, but I won't be making any judgements until I've had a chance to play the final game. Will the tools and resources provided by DDI for D&D Next be as good as the current 4e tools, or even better? I suspect they will, even if not "right away". But again, I'll have to wait until release day and some time playing the game and using the digital tools before making up my mind.

 

[delericho]

Revisions to the core mechanics, to me at least, seem a little redundant at this point.

It is, but they have to do something. They've set themselves the goal of reuniting the fanbase (whether they needed to do that, or if it's just a goal they set themselves, is open to debate).

However, 4e couldn't ever do that - for most PF/OSR fans, that ship has sailed long since. And they couldn't just go back to an old edition, because that would alienate 4e fans.

So - new edition.

The problem that I see is Wizard's poorly done move into digital.

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.

- Paizo's efforts in digital, while still nascent, are much more exciting than what Wizards is doing. Their Kickstarter campaign is double-funded, with two weeks to go.

Eh. Paizo's Kickstarter is for an MMO, about which I simply don't care - I'm a tabletop gamer.

And in terms of tabletop game support, DDI is the best that's out there. Which is fairly tragic, I'll grant you.

(That said, where WotC should definitely learn from Paizo is in the provision of electronic versions of their books. The ability to get free, or very cheap, copies of the books in electronic formats is a major win for Pathfinder. DDI does much the same thing with the Compendium... but it's the gap between "much the same" and "the same thing" that is key.)

 

[Starman]

As you've already stated upthread, you don't really have the expertise to say that .NET or Silverlight is outdated tech, you are simply going on what your "expert" friends have said. And, while I am also not a software engineer, 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.

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

 

[Dire Bare]

That said, where WotC should definitely learn from Paizo is in the provision of electronic versions of their books. The ability to get free, or very cheap, copies of the books in electronic formats is a major win for Pathfinder. DDI does much the same thing with the Compendium... but it's the gap between "much the same" and "the same thing" that is key.

Yes.