D&D Game Table not Mac-Compatible at launch

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Why can't yours switch between Mac and Windows?

Because mine is not a month old. It is in fact about two and a half years old.

 

[Oldtimer]

That shouldn't be too much surprise, because WOTC isn't really a software development house in the first place, <snip>

Then it's good to know that they are not developing this in-house. If people would just read the whole blog entry (from Didier Monin's blog) that was cited a number of posts back, you might find some actual fatcs about this.

Their partner is Radiant Machine, which is a part of SolutionsIQ. The people they have committed to the project at Radiant Machine are not "straight out of college". Do a bit of research before you decide that the sky is falling.

I'm also amazed by the number of people claiming that cross-platform has not extra cost. I've worked in the software business for over thirty years (and still spend 8+ hours per day there) and have never seem a cross-platform anything that wasn't accompanied by some extra cost. Never. Don't blame WotC for not seeing the ROI on that Mac/Linux support.

Since someone mentioned that WotC might as well subsidize swedish versions of the core books, I might start complaining if they don't. You can't just ignore all us swedes here! We want to be able to get 4th edition in our language as well!

 

[Mistwell]

Not to be rude, but I know my Mac has dual support for Windows and can run any Windows-based program.

Why can't yours switch between Mac and Windows? Mine sure as hell can. That said, I did buy it only last month....

For the most part, a lot of them can do just what you're saying. They just don't WANT to do it.

It's easier to pretend 100% of the Mac users (about 10% of the total D&D users, guessing) simply cannot or will not use the software, than admit the number is probably a heck of a lot lower than that. Because the air goes out of much of the complaining...as it comes down to "this is a pain in the butt to do, why couldn't you have made it easier for us small number of folks" instead of "this is unwise to do, because it will cost you so many users".

In the end, much like those complaining they won't move over to 4e from 3.5e, most of the Mac users will likely use this despite their complaining that it's too hard for them to do it. And the loss of users from not being Mac OS compatible will be minimal. Likely more minimal than the cost of making it compatible on both platforms up from (despite a host of "experts" here who tell you it's essentially "free" to make it compatible on multiple platoforms).

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

I'm also amazed by the number of people claiming that cross-platform has not extra cost.

The argument is not that cross-platform has no extra cost. The argument is that the costs to make it cross platform are fully realized and more by the extra customers when programmed with significant reusable code. That is exactly the case.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I'm not really addressing the issue of convenience. The cost of making something compatible for a second platform gets added to the general cost of a product.

It's not any more expensive to create a Web app that works using Java or something else cross-platform. This was a decision made by WotC, not by economics or the realities of technology.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Then it's good to know that they are not developing this in-house. If people would just read the whole blog entry (from Didier Monin's blog) that was cited a number of posts back, you might find some actual fatcs about this.

You know, we just might have done that, we might even like to do it now . . . had someone posted the link. Otherwise, you know, the reading up on it all is a bit, uh, challenging. Thanks for the link. Uh, wait . . .

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

WoW PC users do in fact subsidize the Mac users on that system, with the increased price they pay for the product. Regardless of planning, it takes time and resources to convert it to use on a Mac, even if planned correctly from the beginning. Let's not deny that fact.

Blizzard's Mac team is also their foreign region localization team. They don't have to hire any additional people to do the ports and once the game has shipped, they would either have to lay people off until the next game gets to the localization stage -- then find, hire and retrain them -- or find something else for them to do. Having the Mac guys be on team to do Mac tweaks as needed in between major releases has ended up saving them money overall.

When you are dealing with the HUGE numbers involved with WOW

Blizzard has been creating Mac-compatible games for more than a decade.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Edit -- Never mind -- I'm done, here.

 

[Alan Shutko]

Their partner is Radiant Machine, which is a part of SolutionsIQ. The people they have committed to the project at Radiant Machine are not "straight out of college". Do a bit of research before you decide that the sky is falling.

Thanks for pointing that out. It's a division which was just created yesterday. (http://www.radiantmachine.com/radiantmachinepr.pdf). It's owned by a company with no experience in games. There's clearly no web design experience in house. As a team, they have apparently not worked together on any games. Individually, they may have worked on games, but it's unknown. We're not talking about an established team experienced with the technology they use. The general manager has had experience in compilers and building enterprise systems. No mention of the success rate there, but industry success levels for enterprise systems are low. They are committed to best practices, which is good, but it all boils down to "no track record".

Fortunately, they are located close to Wizards.

There are enough warning signs here to predict a reasonable likelihood of a failed project, especially considering WotC's own track record in management of software development.

 

[Delta]

For the most part, a lot of them can do just what you're saying. They just don't WANT to do it.

Can you cite a source for that information?