I seem to be missing the point on the online CB

[DEFCON 1]

With your curiosity peaked i'm sure you'll look it up.

Touche. And now, having done that... it appears that Steve Wieck from DriveThruRPG posted on the Wizards boards that any book that had been purchased but not yet downloaded was able to be refunded. Whether or not that policy actually went through, I don't know.

 

[Ryujin]

My guess is that this would have required a lot more development time/money and possibly even a new team.

By using silverlight they probably were able to salvage a lot from the old CB for use in the new.

This allows them to quickly and efficiently open the CB to a large group of people who weren't supported before (mac users) without a huge investment of time/money rebuilding everything from the ground up.


It's really only the front end, the actual data is housed on the backend. If/when it comes time to get something going for say, ipads/phones or android devices they'll probably choose something better suited for them.

I mean the big push on those devices is apps as opposed to web based interfaces.

Then you do what everyone else does; farm it out to people whose expertise is in the required area. All that we're talking about is a database with an interface that calculates certain set data, and a "look and feel" interface that matches the context of the information.

They have the database. They apparently have graphic designers and playtesters, who could dictate the information present and the look, and feel of the interface. There's not a lot left. Hell, they could have even gone to one of the developers/companies that currently do competing product, for other games, who would likely have been glad of the new revenue stream and have the needed specific knowledge.

 

[malraux]

Then you do what everyone else does; farm it out to people whose expertise is in the required area. All that we're talking about is a database with an interface that calculates certain set data, and a "look and feel" interface that matches the context of the information.

They have the database. They apparently have graphic designers and playtesters, who could dictate the information present and the look, and feel of the interface. There's not a lot left. Hell, they could have even gone to one of the developers/companies that currently do competing product, for other games, who would likely have been glad of the new revenue stream and have the needed specific knowledge.

In fairness, they tried doing that originally and it backfired spectacularly.

 

[Scribble]

Then you do what everyone else does; farm it out to people whose expertise is in the required area. All that we're talking about is a database with an interface that calculates certain set data, and a "look and feel" interface that matches the context of the information.

Sure they could have done that, but notice I said they probably wanted to salvage what they had, and save time/money on re-building from scratch?

Also keep in mind that they have to support it. They have to update it, and build in new features.

They already have guys on salary that work with .net and silverlight. So now you're paying their salary and also paying to farm out a new product?

Again it makes sense to do this on a platform that the guys know/ allows them to salvage what already exists, and works on the two major platforms that will be using the CB.

Is it the ultimate most ideal of all possible solutions? Obviously not, but it's probably the most ideal of all the options they had available.

 

[darjr]

In fairness, they tried doing that originally and it backfired spectacularly.

I think they picked a brand new company with brand new management and their project was that companies very first. I think.

 

[Pyrex]

People sharing an account is surely what Hasbro wants and allow in the future.

It was explicitly stated in the thread on the WotC board (I'll link it if I spot the post again) that account sharing is against the Terms of Use, i.e., they very much *don't* want you to do it.

I suspect that they recognize the difference between you bringing your laptop to the game and letting other players use the builder as valid, they just don't want you giving your sign-in credentials to 10 people and letting them all use it simultaneously.

 

[Ryujin]

In fairness, they tried doing that originally and it backfired spectacularly.

I wasn't aware of that. What was the situation (broad strokes only)?

Sure they could have done that, but notice I said they probably wanted to salvage what they had, and save time/money on re-building from scratch?

Also keep in mind that they have to support it. They have to update it, and build in new features.

They already have guys on salary that work with .net and silverlight. So now you're paying their salary and also paying to farm out a new product?

Again it makes sense to do this on a platform that the guys know/ allows them to salvage what already exists, and works on the two major platforms that will be using the CB.

Is it the ultimate most ideal of all possible solutions? Obviously not, but it's probably the most ideal of all the options they had available.

Sometimes you just have to bite the bullet and realize you don't have the right people in-house, to get the job done. Anyway, based on the delays we've been seeing it would appear that those people they're already employing don't have the necessary ability to meet deadlines. Once you recognize that point the decision to use outside contractors, or even to go to another technology, is an easier one to consider.

They have the database. It could be ported to damned-near anything that they needed. It's just data. The presentation is the issue.

 

[Ryujin]

It was explicitly stated in the thread on the WotC board (I'll link it if I spot the post again) that account sharing is against the Terms of Use, i.e., they very much *don't* want you to do it.

I suspect that they recognize the difference between you bringing your laptop to the game and letting other players use the builder as valid, they just don't want you giving your sign-in credentials to 10 people and letting them all use it simultaneously.

Which was rather odd given the "coincidence" that the ideal number of characters in the game was 5, which matched the number of monthly updates available.

 

[renau1g]

It's really only the front end, the actual data is housed on the backend. If/when it comes time to get something going for say, ipads/phones or android devices they'll probably choose something better suited for them.

I mean the big push on those devices is apps as opposed to web based interfaces.

And maybe Blackberrys...

 

[renau1g]

I wasn't aware of that. What was the situation (broad strokes only)?

IIRC the virtual table-top, the character visualizer, all those really cool things in your PHB/DMG that had everyone so jazzed up for the new tools. The company couldn't deliver and so hopes were dashed and people still bring up the failed VTT as a sore spot. Most people have moved on, but c'est la vie.