D&D: Insider Tools - will they succeed?

[Cbas_10]

"Rocky" does not even begin to describe the initial launch of this fiasco-in-training.

I can't believe I'm defending anything 4e-related, but....I really think we need to give it some time. 4E does not come out for months (which is what DDI is specifically designed for) and WotC has been totally honest with the fact that it is a work-in-progress. We just get to see things come together as it happens (btw....this is all FREE) instead of having to wait and see it all when we have to decide to subscribe or not in order to see it.

Incidentally, the one thing I am most confident about is that the character generator will be more useful and dependable than the e-tools of 3.0/3.5....After all, part of 4e's purpose behind its design was the online application of the game. Thus, I'd imagine that the developers remember that part of the problem with e-tools was the fact that the designs of the classes and prestige classes hampered the ability of the software. At least that is something that WotC has a little bit of experience with.

In case WotC is watching....let us export/save a finished character sheet as a pdf.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

I have hope for the DI, but as others have said I think its future really hinges on its commitment. Now that they have the success of M:tG online to refer to I think they have a better chance of leveraging that commitment with their corporate masters.

Two things I'd like to add to the conversation:

1.) Actually, Etools as it shipped with the 3.0 books upon release was not that bad at all. Certainly, it was a demo and had decreased functionality, but it was useful, not utterly displeasing to view or use, and never really crashed on me. I used that until 3.5 came out.

Now there were problems in development and the full product became delayed, undersupported, and Baroque in a bad way. I knew people who used it, but I never did.

But the initial disk that came with the books was a fairly handy feature.

2.) The Model I had heard discussed was that the VTT and Character generator would be bundled with the subscription to the magazines, but that they would be available through different pay schemes as well. When I heard that at PAX there wasn't a clear model being discussed, but what was floated was that you might pay a small fee to use the table for a month or some such.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Suppose I wanted to get the online mags. I would refuse to do so, because they are bundled with content that is effectively useless.

I am exactly in this position. I have a PPC Dual G5 Power Mac and there are zero options available for me to make use of the DDI client. I will not pay a crazy rate for a non-paper magazine I used to get in print when it is bundled with software I simply cannot make use of.

I want a payment option that doesn't include me subsidizing software development that will never result in software I can use. My humble request: just let me pay for the magazines and only get the magazines.

 

[pogre]

I'm expecting some bugs and for that reason I will hold off subscribing for a few months. If they get it working well - I'll jump on board.

 

[Maggan]

I searched through ENworld's "Unofficial Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition Info Page" and Wizards' own D&D Insider fact sheet. The only mention of Radiant Machine on either is in an answer to a question about QA testing.

My take was that since Didier Monin is the head honcho for this project at WotC, I checked his blog, thinking that he might have said something about it. Radiant Machine get 4 mentions there, clearly identifying them as the developers.

http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=908201

Also, since I seemed to remember that the same company was doing Gleemax, I entered "who is developing Gleemax" into Google, and got the Radiant Machine blog as the second hit.

http://blog.radiantmachine.com/

It's pretty void of content, though.

So for those jumping on Oldtimer, that "search" took me five minutes, and I purposefully didn't search for "Radiant Machine". Sure, I had to know that Didier Monin was the guy in charge for developing DDI at WotC, but isn't that fairly common knowledge? Or at least very easy to figure out.

Still, I admit that it isn't advertised in three feet tall letters on the WotC site, but then again, neither are any claims that WotC were doing this inhouse, as far as I can see.

BTW: reading Didier's blog is the best way to keep updated. For example, he mentions public beta tests in his latest blog post.

/M

 

[Oldtimer]

Dude, I've been following the 4E news as closely as anyone, and I have never heard of Radiant Machine before. So I think you're a little overboard here with this "iota of research" language. IMO, I think you need to tone it down.

No, I don't think I'm overboard at all. The original post was almost entirely based on the "fact" that WotC was developing this in-house. Reading the Technical Discussion of DDI on the WotC forums should have cleared that up swiftly. Reading Didier Monin's blog would have blown that "fact" away.

Maybe that's more than an "iota of research", but still a reasonable level of research before you go overboard on ENWorld about "WotC's in-house development".

Having looked at Radiant Machine's website now (thanks for the tip), they only have two items in their portfolio - Gleemax and D&D Insider. They may claim to be a general purpose software developer, but so far the only shipping product to their name is a big stinking pile of crap (by which I mean Gleemax is a big stinking pile of crap).

Radiant Machine was formed from their parent company Solutions IQ at the D&D4 announcement, so you can hardly expect to find any other items in the company's portfolio. However, if you look at some leadership names at Radiant Machine, you'll find people like Will Iverson, Andy Wright and Tito Pagan. All there very well-known in their areas of expertise. You'll also notice that Solutions IQ is a consulting company specializing in Agile Development.

I don't think the sky is falling yet.

 

[Atlatl Jones]

The more useful of the D&D Insider Tools, the character generator and dungeon creator, will not work on the Mac platform; making them less useful than garbage. Suppose I wanted to get the online mags. I would refuse to do so, because they are bundled with content that is effectively useless.

Ah, I had forgotten about that. I definitely won't be getting it, unless the Dragon material is really good, it's actually downloadable as a pdf or the like, and the price is low enough that it's worth it to just get the "magazines" and not the non-functional software.

 

[Warbringer]

Radiant Machine was formed from their parent company Solutions IQ at the D&D4 announcement.

Exactly the problem.

9 months to build from scratch a complete multi-user, interactive platform, when the rules are officially still in playtest (granted only affects chargen app)

We are going to see a bare bones application in June. However, I personally expect its gateway will be far for akin to a MMORP than gleemax. And will probably look good.

However, I think it will be buggy, have horrible load issues, will not be fault tolerant, and will drive players away until rev .1

 

[Oldtimer]

Radiant Machine was formed from their parent company Solutions IQ at the D&D4 announcement.

Exactly the problem.

I merely tried to show why there weren't more items in their portfolio. However...

9 months to build from scratch a complete multi-user, interactive platform, when the rules are officially still in playtest (granted only affects chargen app)

As you say, the rules being in flux only affects chargen. The Virtual TableTop, the Character Visualizer, et al can still be completed. Remember that they did show you alpha code working at the D&D4 announcement. That tells me that they didn't start development on August 17. (Not to mention that August 2007 - June 2008 is actually 10 months, but who is counting?)

We are going to see a bare bones application in June. However, I personally expect its gateway will be far for akin to a MMORP than gleemax. And will probably look good.

However, I think it will be buggy, have horrible load issues, will not be fault tolerant, and will drive players away until rev .1

I really need to get me one of those crystal balls you're using.

 

[cougent]

I can't believe I'm defending anything 4e-related, but....I really think we need to give it some time. 4E does not come out for months (which is what DDI is specifically designed for) and WotC has been totally honest with the fact that it is a work-in-progress. We just get to see things come together as it happens (btw....this is all FREE) instead of having to wait and see it all when we have to decide to subscribe or not in order to see it.

Incidentally, the one thing I am most confident about is that the character generator will be more useful and dependable than the e-tools of 3.0/3.5....After all, part of 4e's purpose behind its design was the online application of the game. Thus, I'd imagine that the developers remember that part of the problem with e-tools was the fact that the designs of the classes and prestige classes hampered the ability of the software. At least that is something that WotC has a little bit of experience with.

In case WotC is watching....let us export/save a finished character sheet as a pdf.

I would love for you to be right and me to be proven wrong... BUT I actually have a second word for you that I think makes my case even more iron clad: GLEEMAX!
So far they are 0 for 2 and the next fastball is rapidly approaching.

1.) Actually, Etools as it shipped with the 3.0 books upon release was not that bad at all. Certainly, it was a demo and had decreased functionality, but it was useful, not utterly displeasing to view or use, and never really crashed on me. I used that until 3.5 came out.

Now there were problems in development and the full product became delayed, undersupported, and Baroque in a bad way. I knew people who used it, but I never did.

But the initial disk that came with the books was a fairly handy feature.

Just a slight correction, the product that shipped with the PHB in 2000 was NOT Etools at all. Not just not in name, not in code either. It was a very functional working program that was supposed to evolve further into "Master Tools". The illegitimate step-child program that emerged as Etools was pure crap on toast.