D&D Game Table not Mac-Compatible at launch

[Nifft]

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. To make it work on both PC and Mac, I as a PC user would have to subsidize you as a Mac user when I pay the cost of the product.

As a developer who's done cross-platform work, I'm telling you this is wrong.

It's not much harder to write to three platforms than to one, if you pick the right toolkits which support those three platforms from the beginning. The incremental cost is very low, and you can actually get a lot of value out of debugging on multiple platforms -- some bugs show up much earlier on non-Windows platforms, thanks to different (better) memory protection.

However, if you start with a "finished" program that's not been designed for portability, it can be very expensive to port. That's what you should worry about "subsidizing", Mr. Taxpayer.

Cheers, -- N

 

[ThirdWizard]

It's my understanding that programmers who can program for PC, Mac, and Linux are going to make a good deal more money than a purely, for example, C# or Win32 programmer.

Although I really expected them to go with Silverlight, which should be Mac-compatible (hopefully) sometime next year.

 

[Erik Mona]

My home computer is a Mac, as are all of the computers at Paizo.

Oh, well.

--Erik

 

[JVisgaitis]

My home computer is a Mac, as are all of the computers at Paizo.

Oh, well.

--Erik

I feel your pain man. I planned on upgrading next year anyway so I'll at least be able to use Boot Camp, but that won't help any of my friends who are all on G5s. Erik, any idea on how many publishers are Mac-based? What does WotC use? You ever get any feedback on Dragon & Dungeon subscribers and what computers they have?

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

There are times, like in this thread, that I think Computer OS discussions should not be allowed, just like religion and politics.

I'm a Mac user, with an old computer, that I admit I am hoping to upgrade in the near future (hopefully prior to the release of Starcraft 2). I'm disappointed that WotC will not be supporting the Mac, but am also not surprised considering I don't think they ever bothered thinking about Macs in the past, be it the PC Generator in the 3.0 PHB, e-Tools, MtG online etc.

My PC using friends are all opposed to moving from 3.5 to 4e. I was going to be the advocate for 4e and try and sway them, but if WotC won't support the tools that will assist me in remote gaming with them, getting them to switch to 4e won't do me any good since I won't be able to play online with them, or anyone else for that matter. Sure, if I upgrade my machine I might be able to boot into Windows and use the tools, but when WotC is trying to bring together the larger gaming community through efforts like Gleemax, it would be nice to see them support a small but significant portion of the community.

 

[Mistwell]

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.


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

Continual comparisons to the largest online game company on the planet isn't useful.

They have over 7 million users. They are a devoted software company. They always have been, and they have always had a LOT more users than D&D, and a lot more focus on the issue than D&D, and it makes sense for them to do things in a more costly way up front for payoffs that can come years later (even in other products).

Y'all have got to quit the comparisons to Blizzard. This isn't that. This is a normal everyday piece of software intended for a rather limited number of people. It doesn't pay off to invest more up front for some possible benefits to cross-products down the road, or in some department you think has been created to last a long time. There IS no scale here that benefits from such investments. It's a relatively small piece of gaming software, and the economics dictate it's not practical to make it cross platform.

Does it really make sense to compare the biggest online gaming company on the planet to an app that WOTC uses for one of it's products? Come on guys, you know it doesn't. Be a bit more realistic here.

It's not that big a deal to switch to your Windows OS on your Mac. And if your Mac is so old it cannot do that, you're probably in the same boat as many PC users who cannot use the software because their computers are not new enough to handle the specs either. If you have a relatively new computer, either Mac or PC, you can use it. If you don't, you can't. Seems fair to me. Seems like how an awful lot of games run, to me.

 

[Mistwell]

Can you cite a source for that information?

Do I have a source for the claim that most newer Macs can switch to a Windows XP operating system?

Are you serious? Come on man, this isn't a rules discussion. Put away the disputing tactics. You know modern Macs can switch OS. It's in this thread, from many Mac users themselves.

 

[Umbran]

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

Yeah, but there's one major problem with this analogy - Blizzard is first and foremost a software shop. That's what they do. It is their main focus, their life's breath. They have loads of highly skilled developer resources.

As opposed to WotC - a shop loaded with card game and rpg game designers, most of who probably don't know the first thing about hefty computer coding. All the resources for this new stuff have to be contractors or new hires - meaning that to start with, they'll be really short on resources.

Starting up a new development arm is expensive and risky, business-wise. In essence, it is equivalent to a whole startup company on its own. We should not be sur[prised if, like any other startup, they have to make some compromises. If it brings in $$, they'll continue to expand that department, and the offerings will become more fully-rounded.

 

[Alan Shutko]

Starting up a new development arm is expensive and risky, business-wise. In essence, it is equivalent to a whole startup company on its own.

Good news: they've decided to outsource. Bad news: they're outsourcing to a brand new games arm of a consulting biz.

We should not be surprised if, like any other startup, they have to make some compromises.

And we should not be surprised if, like a preponderance of startups, it fails completely.

 

[Nifft]

Continual comparisons to the largest online game company on the planet isn't useful.

They have over 7 million users.

I thought WotC projected 15 million users? How is it smart to reduce your compatibility if you want more users?

And for the record, Blizzard has been doing simultaneous releases since before they were the largest PC game house on the planet. This kind of good planning may have been relevant to their success.

Yeah, but there's one major problem with this analogy - Blizzard is first and foremost a software shop. That's what they do. It is their main focus, their life's breath. They have loads of highly skilled developer resources.

They also produce a much more cutting edge product than anything Wizards is going to sell. I don't think anyone expects the WotC Digital Initiative to be anywhere near as cool looking, as high performance, or as low-latency as World of Warcraft!

If WotC is going to be pinning their future success on this particular lump of software, hadn't they better get some software expertise in-house, and fast?

Cheers, -- N