Digital Insider #13

[garyh]

Flash is better than .net stuff, as flash is cross-platform.

I have no problems whatsoever with Flash... when using a computer I have full admin rights on.

 

[justanobody]

I provided a suggestion for what you could do if you can't possibly wait any length of time to get your old issues back. Admittedly, it would be NICE if WotC was a modern internet-oriented company, but I'm trying to save my complaining about that for when they release their for-pay game table and it turns out to be a very pretty but feature-poor and crashy version of OpenRPG or MapTool.

It isn't what the customer should have to do to actually make use of their paid for service, but what WotC should have done in advance to find out what it takes to be a successful digital service provider. I mean if they don't have a single person that can figure out how to make the database work to tell the system which issues a certain person is allowed to dowload, then there is much to worry about with ANY other application that uses any sort of datadase.

datestampe each compiled issue, and make a list of datestamps or date ranges in the personal account to tell the system which compiled issues a specific person is allow to download.

That is all that is needed. It would work the same way the CMS works to post articles to the website.

If date(YYYY,MM,DD) then post article

for each $(underscore)user_date{
    if issue_date within timeframe{display compiled issue}
}

I am not going to give them fully working code, but they should be able to work with that concept in ASPX to make it work rather quickly.

There just isn't any excuse to remove the content since that content being online is exactly what people are paying for.

 

[Imban]

My guess is that this is not a technical limitation, but rather intended to discourage people from buying a month's worth of access, downloading several years worth of Dragons, and then not renewing for another year or so.

But then, if a few back issues (even a few dozen) is all it takes to get someone to give DDI a try, it seems like a pretty reasonable tradeoff. So maybe my theory isn't very sound after all.

Well, yeah, that's obviously what they're going for.

The caveat being that it'd be possible to "attach" magazines that you've paid for to a user's account, and they didn't. Perhaps they didn't want to for some reason, or perhaps they just didn't think of that before it was too late and don't want to redo a significant portion of their database.

 

[malraux]

My guess is that this is not a technical limitation, but rather intended to discourage people from buying a month's worth of access, downloading several years worth of Dragons, and then not renewing for another year or so.

But then, if a few back issues (even a few dozen) is all it takes to get someone to give DDI a try, it seems like a pretty reasonable tradeoff. So maybe my theory isn't very sound after all.

I can understand why they would want to avoid that. Its a reasonable concern, though I could see it working in their favor as you describe. But really, how hard would it be to tie access to pdfs to an individual account? I'm sure its not trivial, but shouldn't be monumentally impossible.

I'll also say that I can understand if this is a temporary issue while WotC gets the DDI fully online.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

.net 3.5 is a really great tool... that has nothing to do with any problems it might or might not have. that is all about the programmers, no matter what environment if your programmers dont know what they are doing it will suck... DDI is looking like it is not going to suck.

.NET 3.5 is awesome. And currently attending the PDC - .NET, C#, all that will continually get better.

Flash is better than .Net stuff, as flash is cross-platform.

Just because something is cross-platform doesn't make it better. It just makes it cross-platform, which can be better for some aspects. But developing complex apps with .NET and the design tools related to it looks like a much more manageable task to me then doing the same in flash. Having the right tools, the right API, all this can improve aspects like reliability and performance.

And I would be more prone to betting on M$ making .NET cross-platform then Flash getting the kind of support .NET enjoys. (In fact, the former is partially happening already, with projects like Mono or Silverlight. Of course, it's not nearly enough, but I still dream...)

I know I might get flamed for saying this but it will run on your Mac if you can run an emulator with Windows XP and the service pack 1 3.5 version of .net.

I will refrain from flaming you, but: who really wants to install Windows on his Mac?! I did, and I never used it. (Of course, I have a Vista PC, too, so it's not like I'm missing something). And this definitely requires you to get
- The Emulator (Parallels costs money, BootCamp doesn't, but requires you to reboot your Mac to Vista or Mac OS X)
- A license of Windows XP. Which costs money. If you've got an "old" copy around, or if you happen to be a student at a University or school that is part of the Microsoft Developer Network Acadamic Alliance, this might come for free to you - but not everyone has this kind of stuff.

It is possible, but the solution is still not optimal. You can't avoid Windows (and that might be important for some Mac users), and you will probably spend extra money... (If you're getting it only for the Character Builder, it sounds like a bad deal, if you're use your Mac for games and certain WIndows apps, then it might be okay)

 

[mattdm]

My guess is that this is not a technical limitation, but rather intended to discourage people from buying a month's worth of access, downloading several years worth of Dragons, and then not renewing for another year or so.

But then, if a few back issues (even a few dozen) is all it takes to get someone to give DDI a try, it seems like a pretty reasonable tradeoff. So maybe my theory isn't very sound after all.

Exactly. Current issues are very valuable. Back issues should be candy to help induce people to subscribe. Now, with the option to subscribe just for a month at a time, the risk is somewhat stronger. A compromise would be to keep all issues online for full-year subscribers and only show the current issues to month-by-month subscribers.