D&D Game Table not Mac-Compatible at launch

[Nifft]

A thought - even if they do make it Mac-compatible, would they design it as a Universal app, or Intel-only? The Intel machines will be 2.5 years old by the time D&D 4e launches.

Is it much harder to just compile for both? (I've only done one at a time, and mostly with GCC, so my experience with OS/X is similar to my experience with Linux.)

I can't imagine them using a lot of chip-specific features either way.

Cheers, -- N

 

[thedungeondelver]

I'd suggest you use VirtualPC, but some whackjob at Wallet$ of the Co$t decided a web interface needed a Geforce 8800GTX with 768mb of texture memory and dual pipelines, and at last brush VPC only emulates a very, very basic set of hardware :\

Welcome to $th Edition, kids.

(It should be noted that the system requirements for AD&D and DRAGON magazine are much, much lower... )

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'd suggest you use VirtualPC, but some whackjob at Wallet$ of the Co$t decided a web interface needed a Geforce 8800GTX with 768mb of texture memory and dual pipelines, and at last brush VPC only emulates a very, very basic set of hardware

Welcome to $th Edition, kids.

Ah, yes, because evil corporate overlords worship the almighty dollar.

I'm sure with the piles of money they're raking in, they'll be able to pay the Edition Gestapo to come to your house and make you switch editions, too.

Disloyalty is treason! Dissent is sedition! We're wiretapping your phones, but if you're innocent, you've got nothing to fear! It's for your own good!

 

[Alan Shutko]

Like the "D&D players have higher IQs than the rest of the population on average" chestnut, I'm extremely skeptical of this claim.

I wonder if someone has access to the Enworld server logs and can do browser analysis on them? It would at least bring some numbers to this discussion.

 

[Delta]

I'm sure they will support macs, probably sooner rather than later.

That I would definitely bet against. As a former computer games engineer, I'm pretty well aware that "Starting with PC, because there are more" is standard diplomatic boilerplate for when you're going to be PC-only. The fact that they have a native client is pretty much a lock for that part of the project.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

If its any consolation to the non-PC users, it seems that the only things you'd lose out on are the things directly relying on DirectX. So the character gen and, sadly, probably the online gaming through the map.

So while it will kill those two major parts, unless they decide to support Macs like is vaguely suggested, you'll probably still have access to the other stuff...whatever it ends up being.

 

[Maggan]

I wonder if someone has access to the Enworld server logs and can do browser analysis on them? It would at least bring some numbers to this discussion.

I don't have that, but I have something that will at least give an indication as to the percentage.

A week ago I got a news item listed on the front page. Brilliant timing, since news were slow that day. I got a record amount of unique visitors to my blog that day (352), and higher than normal traffic until ... well, 4e hit the news.

So, this extra traffic is mostly from people visiting EN World. And the breakdown looks like this:

Windows 90.15%
Macintosh 9.12%
Linux 0.61%
(not set) 0.12%

For browsers, the breakdown is as follows:

Internet Explorer 46.11%
Firefox 44.28%
Safari 4.38%
Opera 3.77%
Mozilla 0.61%
Netscape 0.36%
Camino 0.24%
Konqueror 0.12%
Mozilla Compatible Agent 0.12%

It's not the real thing, but it's an indication at least. I'm a bit surprised about the high Mac percentage, actually.

/M

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

That I would definitely bet against. As a former computer games engineer, I'm pretty well aware that "Starting with PC, because there are more" is standard diplomatic boilerplate for when you're going to be PC-only. The fact that they have a native client is pretty much a lock for that part of the project.

To me, using Direct X to power the graphics of some of the features was enough of a hint that WotC won't come back and bring feature-parity tools to other platforms at all soon, and the way they deliver their software now . . . if ever.

But while I'm an eternal optimist on most 4e news, on this I am an realist/pessimist.

 

[Agamon]

Honestly, just the idea that WotC is planning a client of any sort scares me. They haven't proven themselves very capable with software, and I'd like to see them do easy things (like improve their website) before more difficult things like develop networked clients.

QFT

I mean look at how well they planned their website for the weekend. Kinda sad. Spending $10 a month on this Insider thing is silly enough, but becomes a really bad idea given WotC's online track record.

 

[RichGreen]

Hi,

We have three Macs at home and no PCs. I use a PC at work but I'm not allowed to load any software on it, or indeed, visit very many websites. We'll have to wait and see but I'm disappointed that Wizards didn't go for a web-based solution.

Cheers


Richard