@devs of PCGEN: A question

[sunmaster]

Hello,

As I am really happy looking forward to the release of 4E I am somewhat irritated by the fact that I will not able to use the software suite of WoTC as they are only targetting PCs (which falsely means for them Windows ).

But because there is already a supported and ever developed D&D software PCGen which is also platform independent here a question to the developers of PCGen:

- Did WoTC approached you with an offer to develop their DI basing on PCGen ?
- And linked with this question: If there was such an approach why did it fail?

It is very irritating for me why WoTC is not developing their DI platform independent
because platform independence means:
1) better quality
2) more users and with this more market chance
3) more means of use (For this a small example: If DI would not be developed on Windows-DirectX-Intel but instead developed just targeting browser technologies (AJAX) then WoTC would be able to target iPhone users + plus of course all computer users.
So you could even "take DI with you" with your smartphone.)

We all future DI users should make a big bid - or how it is called in English - to WoTC to just take a new road of development by targetting also MACs, *nix systems, and smartphones.
I don't know how to make such a bid but we can just collect ideas here.

I am very curious to the answers of the PCGen devs
regards
sunmaster

PS: @Mods : I know that there is a sub-forum about computer games/software here but as this is directly linked to 4E I have posted it here. But you are the masters, if you have to move it then just do it. Thanks.

 

[sunmaster]

You just have to see that a development of DI on the base of PCGen would have these advantages:
- PCGen would get the "power" of the development team of WoTC
- with this the base quality and sum of functionality of PCGen would be maxed out
- WoTC would give back to the community a very good software

All what will make up DI are services.
What does that mean?
A "service" of DI is that WoTC opeartes the machines day in and day out to run efficiently and reliable so that I have the software to create and manage my (N)PCs day and night.
Another "service" are the contents that will authored by WoTC.
Then a "service" is the harddisk space that we will get to use from WoTC to save our brain dumps there

BUT the software in itself is not a service (and also not a product because it will not be selled at Walmart or somesuch).
So they could very good build on PCGen and cultivate further the community by helping to get a free software for 4E to just use it from not-connected machines.

I would want really know why they did not made this decision? I don't know where to ask :\

 

[Charwoman Gene]

Umm, cause Wizards I don't know, wants to CHARGE for it.
Cause PCGen is TERRRIBLY ugly.
Cause PCGEn is nightmarishly hard to use.

YMMV.

 

[sunmaster]

Umm, cause Wizards I don't know, wants to CHARGE for it.
Cause PCGen is TERRRIBLY ugly.
Cause PCGEn is nightmarishly hard to use.

WoTC can very well charge for it. They charge for the services they will give - speak of subscription - to the people. They will never charge for the software itself.

With WoTCs help PCGen could get a user interface which every user - so as you - finds not ugly.

With WoTCs help PCGen could become easier to use for every user - so as you -.

So, in my opinion your arguments are not counter-arguments to build DI basing in PCGen.

But thanks anyway for your thoughts.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

In general, it is faster and prettier and easier to build giving the tools that Microsatan has provided. DirectX and the like. It allows for more graphical umph and easier end-user usability with less development cost. Java-based cross-platform software requires, well, Java to be installed, and the proper version, and then the software is installed, etc etc.

Not that you can't build an installer package to put Java up first, or work harder to make it user-friendly and graphically attractive. But, financially speaking, it is easier and faster to code for "A Large And Dominant Percentage" of the home computer market than it is to code cross-platform to pick up a few extra percent here and there.

Now, I like Mac. I would like an Apple laptop. And I've used Linux in the past. And I think it sucks that they aren't going to offer cross-platform support. I think it is somewhat short sighted, since the noise I hear suggests that Mac is growing its market share among some of the same demographics as D&D, and Mac is certainly "sexier" than PC.

--fje

 

[karianna]

From the PCGen Chairmonkey

Hello,
- Did WoTC approached you with an offer to develop their DI basing on PCGen?
- And linked with this question: If there was such an approach why did it fail?

No, we approached them and offered PCGen as a mid-tier rules engine, we realise our UI is not up to scratch, but I think most people would agree that the sheer functionality of PCGen is 2nd to none. We ourselves will be working to split the core engine from the UI and develop a new UI in time (and of course 3rd parties are more than welcome to create their own UIs).

Unfortunately we never got a reply (despite repeated attempts) even through we regularly communicate with them over other matters. We can only conclude that they wanted to build something in house.

It is very irritating for me why WoTC is not developing their DI platform independent
because platform independence means:
1) better quality
2) more users and with this more market chance
3) more means of use (For this a small example: If DI would not be developed on Windows-DirectX-Intel but instead developed just targeting browser technologies (AJAX) then WoTC would be able to target iPhone users + plus of course all computer users.
So you could even "take DI with you" with your smartphone.)

We all future DI users should make a big bid - or how it is called in English - to WoTC to just take a new road of development by targeting also MACs, *nix systems, and smartphones.
I don't know how to make such a bid but we can just collect ideas here.

I haven't been following the latest rumours about DI, but my very rough understanding is that it'll be web browser based, so I guess that's fairly x-platform.

I hope my reply helps clarify things a little

Oh, and of course PCGen will attempt to support 4e as long as the OGL/SRD or (what ever it will be) will allow us to do so. We think because we have such a strong/flexible rules engine, that we will be able to support it quite quickly (we already support 3e, 3.5e, modern, deadlands and other d20 systems).

We'll also once more politely ask WotC for the rights to use their book content (as opposed to just SRD content). Given WotC's recent trend to bring everything in house, I'm not sure how this will go.

 

[karianna]

In general, it is faster and prettier and easier to build giving the tools that Microsatan has provided. DirectX and the like. It allows for more graphical umph and easier end-user usability with less development cost. Java-based cross-platform software requires, well, Java to be installed, and the proper version, and then the software is installed, etc etc.

Not that you can't build an installer package to put Java up first, or work harder to make it user-friendly and graphically attractive. But, financially speaking, it is easier and faster to code for "A Large And Dominant Percentage" of the home computer market than it is to code cross-platform to pick up a few extra percent here and there.

Now, I like Mac. I would like an Apple laptop. And I've used Linux in the past. And I think it sucks that they aren't going to offer cross-platform support. I think it is somewhat short sighted, since the noise I hear suggests that Mac is growing its market share among some of the same demographics as D&D, and Mac is certainly "sexier" than PC.

--fje

We'll be watching WotC's product with interest. There are also several other competitors to us who have build windows only products (with arguably superior UIs to ours), like rpgxplorer and hero lab. However it's the getting the rules right and the interaction of those rules with all of the various source books and 3rd party publishers and.... that takes up the development time and effort. If 4e proves to be an easy rule set to implement software wise then I could see WotC (or anyone) knock up a solution fairly quickly. There's very little chance of something being developed rapidly if the rule set is anywhere as varied and complex as 3.0 and 3.5 and Modern.

Anyhow, PCGen is looking to overhaul it's UI, but firstly we're putting a new 'core' engine in place to better support the exceedingly complex rules that our game modes (3, 3.5, modern, deadlands etc) demand, we'll be splitting the core from the UI at same time and then building a new UI after that (in theory that UI could be build in non Java technology).

Of course, this might get derailed a little if we need to support 4e in a hurry

And yes I suspect we'll still be the only significant free generator out there!

 

[sunmaster]

@karianna , Thank you for your explanations.

It made me sad to read that WoTC never answered your approach.

I don't know your "statistics" - speak your user base, or monthly download rate and so on - but I can only imagine that today only a minority of 3rd Ed. players use PCGen.
In 9 months you will have to "fight" against the marketing of WoTC bringing the players to DI.

I can only think of the scenario that in 9 months PCGen is more than now "underground".
What makes me more sad.

All your precious development time nullified in a way - even if PCGen will not stop working at the day 4E releases - because who will use PCGen if they get not only a chargen SW but also all these pretty contents about their game.