No Macs? Holy crap did WotC do the math wrong!

[WizarDru]

Java is a lousy solution.

I don't know if it's lousy or not, but I will say that I have yet to see a Java application that was not slow, a memory hog and sporting an ugly interface. I don't need the Crysis enging, but if WotC is going to succeed, I need something resembling a punchy interface. While Java probably can support these things, I posit that it must not be easy to do so. I have seen games and commercial applications running under Java and been left unimpressed by both.

Heck, even Sun admits that Java and the JRE have a ways to go before they really are consumer-ready. If WotC can deliver the performance I expect...no, demand for the DI, then great. If not, then count me out. I already have enough under-performing electronic D&D tools.

In all honesty, I expect the 4e rules to be great and the DI to fall flat on it's face (both based on past performance). But I'd like to be wrong on the latter.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I know what they should have done: They should have built the software with Silverlight, based on WPF/.NET 3.0 technology. Unlike "real" .NET, it exists also on Mac OS X.
But wait, that wasn't out 6 months ago...


Cross Platform development in the area of graphic intensive application is not easy. It requires extra a lot of extra work. Sure, you can use abstraction layers to ensure to "hide" the complexities of the graphics stuff from the rest of the application. But this doesn't mean that you don't have to to do the graphic stuff twice.

At my corporation, we are developing with C++ and QT, and we are also developing with .NET 3.0

The C++ QT application is currently working on Windows only. Overhauling it for Mac and Linux would be possible, but this requires a lot of work, for which we simply do not have the manpower. Maybe the guys doing the software will get around doing it in some time. But maybe not.

The .NET application is Windows only, since there are no implementations for .NET 3 for Linux or Mac yet. I hope this will improve due to projects like Mono and Olive, and also due to Silverlight. But honestly, after developing with .NET I will never want to go back. Maybe I'll have to, but I don't like to.



The realities of software development mean that there is a "design space" consisting of these variables:
1) Time
2) Money
3) Features you want.
if you decrease the time available for a project and want the same features, the money you require will go up.
If you decrease the money available for a project, it takes either longer or you will have to sacrifice some features.
If you want more features, the money will cost more or require more time.

Software Development fails these days (frighteningly often) because these rules are either ignored or certain estimates are simply wrong (sometimes intently to get the job, sometimes because people just don't know what they got into).

WotC knows that D&D 4th edition will hit the street on May 2008. Development started at some point before. WotC has probably only a certain budget reserved for the software.
So, to get the software in the time available and for the money required, it want probably this way:
"We need an application that will allow a graphic representation of a game table and a character, and allows the user to roll dice. We need it till May 2008 and it may cost no more than 900,000 $*"
Company A says: "Damn, we had to begin from the start. We'll get it to May 2008, but this will require our full staff and we might have to hire some external help. I guess that will cost 1,200,000"!
Company B says: "We have a 3D Engine half finished, so this will cut some time. But it only works on Windows. Oh, and it costs what you're willing to pay, and we will get it out in time".
Market Research: "Windows? Oh, that's pretty common. Would be better if it was universally used, but we figure this will make only 100,000 $ difference more per year"
WotC: "900,000 + 100,000 = 1,000,000. 1,000,000 < 1,200,000. So, for the first year, it will be cheaper than Company A? Company B, you got the job!"

*) all numbers made up with no knowing how the actual numbers would look like.

---

All that said: I am a Windows and a Mac user. I love my new MacBook Pro, but there is really little software I need that runs on it. The MacBook is my "writing & watching movies" computer these days, which probably make it a waste of my money. But I like it anyway, and I would love it more would run on it.
I even bought and installed Windows Vista for it, though i am not using that too often. My old machine still runs the games I have fine...

oh, and as a general disclaimer: I always had a tendency for Microsoft OS (never got into Linux/Unix, despite having studied computer sciences and being a software developer), and since I am developing with .NET at my job, I became a kind of Microsoft "fanboy". So take everything I say with this in mind. (Even though I must admit that there are certain features of Windows that could be a lot better. But Microsoft can build good OS - unfortunately, these are only research prototypes incompatible with everything we have these days. )

 

[Tanuki]

Maliciously?

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH! I hate this kind of message board discussion tactic. Grrr. Must.Calm.Down.

So, no counter argument to any of my other points, based on sound economic theory and 10 years experience writing cross-platform apps, then? Just nitpicking one word? I hate that kind of message board discussion tactic.

 

[Tanuki]

The C++ QT application is currently working on Windows only.

That's weird. We use C++ and QT specifically because it does cross platform so well. Are you sure it's the QT bit making it hard to do the cross platform?

 

[Stormtalon]

Actually, I stumbled upon this yesterday: CodeWeavers

They have a directx engine built in and it does NOT require you to run Windows at all -- or more importantly to buy windows, at all.

Still, we are talking about spending ~$60 to run DDI or other windows apps, but it may be a workaround until WotC ports the software.

Oh, nice. There's what I'd consider to be an acceptable option to tide over the wait for a real port. It's sorta like a user-end version of Cider, I'd hazard.

Something to keep in mind once I get myself a iMac early next year. =)

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

heck out of 55 respondents to "which OS do you use" here on enworld 23 use MAC OS X That's what...41%?

Since someone mentioned that the poll was in the Computer forum, I'm just going to hazard a guess that since computer software is harder to come by for macs than for Windows, it's likely that there are more mac people in that forum than elsewhere, since part of the reason they're there is to locate mac software.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Since someone mentioned that the poll was in the Computer forum

Where's that poll? Is it still open? I'd like to vote.

 

[kenmarable]

Enworld is one of the most succesful websites dedicated to D&D, with more than 35,000 unique visitors per day, and I'm not sure that I'd trust their numbers, either. Because if there are 3 million active players, then a LOT of them aren't visiting ENworld. WotC hasn't released their web visitor and browser type stats...but it's possible they're looking at the same statistics and drawing their own conclusions, and with their sample size, I think they'd have a relatively more accurate picture if they're using that metric and not external research (which I suspect is at least a component).

Of course even that isn't clear since the web statistics measures the operating system of the computers visited the web site, which may or may not match up with the computers people would use for gaming. Personally, I browse the sites 95% of the time from work on my Windows PC (shhh, don't tell my boss). At home I have a Mac laptop and use that for gaming (just happen to not do as much web browsing at home).

Their web statistics are probably a somewhat decent picture, but still isn't perfectly accurate. Market research (which WotC does regularly do) is far more accurate and probably what they use. As for the DirectX decision, as I understand it, that decision was made years ago, and they are re-purposing and expanding on existing code originally built when the market might have been different. So current statistics, whatever the source, are probably moot.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

The poll was also linked from this thread, which from the title is likely to attract a higher proportion of Mac users.

Argue the statistics all you want, the simple fact is more people drive Windows machines than those of us with Macs or Linux. In the end WotC is betting that there will be enough Windows users out there to make the D&D Insider profitable. How many more subscribers they might gain from a cross-platform application, and what the return on investment would be on that can never be answered unless WotC does it and examines the data.

I will probably still purchase the 4e books when the come out. As for D&D Insider, I haven't subscribed to Dragon since 1988, and never subscribed to Dungeon, and yet I still enjoyed my D&D games. I thought D&D Insider might draw me in with the virtual game table, but if I can't use it without additional computer investment, the I probably won't bother with it at all.

 

[JVisgaitis]

Interesting. I saw reports that said the opposite (at least as far as the system they use for gaming preparation). I wish I could remember where I saw that.

Being a publisher and knowing so many people in the community that are publishers, my view of this might be entirely skewed to Mac because most publishers use Macs. I dunno. If you saw something different, I'd like to see it...

I'm not seeing where you're getting this data from...are you extrapolating from your website and applying it to the entirety of the D&D market?

Its extrapolated from my website yes. While it certainly isn't close to perfect by any means, I'm not suggesting that this pertains to the whole D&D market.

Honestly, I'm not really concerned too much with people that are playing D&D right now and not going to EN World or other websites for D&D. I work with a ton of people at Network Solutions that don't even know about EN World or Wizards.com.

I feel that it would be pretty insane to assume that when 4e hits the whole D&D market should be taken into consideration for the Digital Initiative. I think the segment of the market that WotC should be concerned with is the segment that is online now. IMO, those will be the people that will first buy into the Digital Initiative. That's what I'm basing this all off of.