D&D Game Table not Mac-Compatible at launch

[Horacio]

Welcome to DND Corporate Moron Edition. This looks like something made by an IT department rather than a creative crew.

I disagree, any IT department worth its name would suggest cross-platform

 

[Horacio]

They're also enough to run Oblivion, Doom 3, and pretty much any of the latest games. I'm confused why a virtual tabletop, let alone a character generator, needs such high specs.

It doesn't !

I've used virtual tabletop applications (ok, maybe not as shiny and cool as DDI will be) for years, first one was a Java Applet I found in the net, it ran in a intel 486 at 66 Mhz with Netscape Navigator 4...

 

[bloodydrake]

yes shader 2.0 is dx9 only..and yes it won't work with most budget laptops either ..the ones with the integrated intel video display pre 900 series, shared main memory ones ect ect.

really its this simple is this a licensed engine? Or completely homebrew? If its a licensed engine which is it and has any games or apps using it been ported to Mac.. If the answer is no..well there ya go.

btw heres a wiki page with games and supported video chipsets for dx9
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_computer_games_that_require_Pixel_Shaders

basically your video card better be one of these
* ATI Radeon 9500/9550/9600/9700/9800 series
* ATI Radeon X300/X600 series
* ATI Express-200 integrated graphics
* Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 900 and 950 series (no hardware vertex shader)
* XGI Volari series
* SiS Mirage 3
* S3 Chrome series, including DeltaChrome and GammaChrome but excluding UniChrome integrated graphics

[edit] Version 2.0x (DirectX 9.0b)

Version 2.0x comprises two versions - version 2.0a (for nVidia GeForce FX series) and version 2.0b (for ATI Radeon X700/X800/X850 series). These versions expose additional features over version 2.0 and are usually used for increased performance with the target hardware (GeForceFX or Radeon X700/X800/X850).

* nVidia GeForce FX series
* ATI Radeon X700/X800/X850 series
* AMD 690G/V chipset and Radeon Xpress 1250

[edit] Version 3.0 (DirectX 9.0c)

* nVidia GeForce 6 Series
* nVidia GeForce 7 Series
* ATI Radeon X1K series
* Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 3000 (Intel® GMA 3000)

[edit] Version 4.0 (DirectX 10.0)

* nVidia GeForce 8 Series
* ATI Radeon HD 2000 series
* AMD 780G chipset (RS780)
* Intel Graphics Media Accelerator X3500

 

[drothgery]

Look, your assertion that it doesn't cost more is just plain false. It DOES cost more. It's not done seamlessly, even with the open source products out there. You have to devote more time and resources to programming it, and debugging and testing it. It's just that such costs become pretty small when you spread them across as many users as WOW has.

That's not really the issue. The issue is 'do Mac users bring in enough revenue to justify the cost of the port?' (which means that the additional development costs and support costs are less than Mac sales and subscriptions bring in). Blizzard thinks they do for their games; no big video game company is going to develop Mac versions out of pure Apple love.

But the economics of WoW are likely to be very different than the client parts of D&D Insider. Although WotC's development costs (and probable porting costs) are somewhat lower, and the Mac share of the market may actually be greater (hardcore computer gamers likely being more Windows-centric than tabletop gamers or the market as a whole), their projected user base is orders of magnitude smaller.

 

[Delta]

Look, your assertion that it doesn't cost more is just plain false. It DOES cost more. It's not done seamlessly, even with the open source products out there. You have to devote more time and resources to programming it, and debugging and testing it. It's just that such costs become pretty small when you spread them across as many users as WOW has.

I'm a former computer games engineer. I've worked on several online games. I've interviewed for the live team of one of the premiere MMORPG's.

IMO, the reason that the native-Windows-application is a warning flag is that, in this day and age, it's a sign of an immature development process. (#1) They could have created a cross-platform codebase to leverage on multiple other platforms (which actually helps with the debugging issue you mention, per Blizzard: "Both our Mac and Windows developers find bugs we probably wouldn’t have found so quickly without simultaneous development on both platforms": http://developer.apple.com/business/macmarket/blizzard.html ). Or, (#2) they could have used a web-based solution and been able to branch out to things like mobile phones in the future. Or, (#3) they could have bought a ready-made cross-platform game engine.

But, they didn't do any of those things -- they cobbled together a Windows-only solution, which yes, is probably the fastest way to get some kind of functionality showing early on. However, long-term companies that do that usually have maintenance, stability, and extensibility problems, because it shows that they're not a mature software development house.

That shouldn't be too much surprise, because WOTC isn't really a software development house in the first place, and they actually have a proven track record of tangled-up software projects. So what this development represents, again IMO, is that that historical behavior isn't changing. I would expect about the same level of success as with the D&D Master Tools/E-Tools for 3E, as a median guess.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Or, (#2) they could have used a web-based solution and been able to branch out to things like mobile phones in the future.

Ding ding! Coulda . . .

 

[Alan Shutko]

I was looking at specs, and Neverwinter Nights 2 has about the same requirements. Maybe they're building their character generator and virtual tabletop off the NWN base?

 

[cthulhu_duck]

I consider it unfortunate that the system architects chose to use a Windows-only technology (i.e. DirectX/Direct3D) for the client when other professional-grade options (e.g. OpenGL) are available.

That's much my thinking as well. Given the opportunity lost in not selecting an option that would allow capture of the Mac, Linux and other markets I'm disappointed both for myself and for Wizards.

 

[AllisterH]

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....

 

[JVisgaitis]

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

You shouldn't be. Geeks play D&D and a lot of them use Macs. Majority of the publishers I know do all of their work on Macs as well. I think in the RPG industry, there is a much higher percentage of Mac use which is why I was very shocked by the announcement. I'm bummed too. I was all gung ho on the new DI until that announcement so that leaves me and about 12 of my friends out in the cold for now. Hopefully, we'll all have Intel Macs by then and we can run it in Bootcamp.