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

[Nifft]

How come every time this comes up it turns into a debate on who knows what about the creation of cross compatible software?

I think they should concentrate on a working, good version for windows before worrying about any other platform. Just make ONE GOOD WORKING VERSION!

This is why.

Cheers, -- N

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

I shoudn't bite, but: There have been several. XP, Vista, and most of the Servers are just peachy.

He didn't say there should be a good working version OF Windows, he said they (WotC) should put together one good working version (of DDI) FOR Windows (instead of versions all across different platforms).

 

[Mercule]

He didn't say there should be a good working version OF Windows, he said they (WotC) should put together one good working version (of DDI) FOR Windows (instead of versions all across different platforms).

Doh! You're right.

 

[Breschau of Livonia]

Parallels Desktop 3.0

Over the weekend I updated Parallels on my Mac to the newest version (3.0). Going through my drivers I noticed it has the WINE version of Directx 9.0c. That's no guarantee of working with Digital Initiative, but it is promising. DirectX 3D support can sometimes be a bit tricky - for example when I tried running FantasyGrounds demo version in my Virtual Desktop (which requires DirectX 9) things were pretty buggy - everything appeared all black unless it was highlighted by the mouse, then it appeared.

 

[CharlesRyan]

Many of the posts on this thread have alluded to the technical challenges of a cross-platform launch. I have no technical insight, so I won't debate that issue at length. I'll just make this point: World of Warcraft launched with both a PC and Mac client. To my knowledge, and based on the success of the game, I don't think it was "dumbed down" or extra buggy because they did that. So it can be done, if there's a will.

Furthermore, while I doubt that multi-platform compatibililty is the central key to WoW's success, it is a competitive advantage over other fantasy IPs. If I was WotC, I'd be very concerned about granting my key competitors in the fantasy play mindspace any competitive advantage.

Finally, just to throw some random fuel on the fire, some people have mentioned that companies often develop for PC only because frankly that's all they know; everyone within the walls uses a PC, so they simply aren't thinking about Macs. I suspect that's often true, but, ironically, WotC is a very Mac-friendly company. The large art, graphic design, and layout departments are dominated by Macs, but Macs are also common in R&D and even the business side of things (and, of course, the IT department that supports all these machines). So it's not blindness to the Mac that led WotC in this direction.

 

[JDJblatherings]

that's a REALLY bad misspelling of china, dude

Final assembly happens in the U.S. (or Ireland for the euro market) and yuo can actually get them repaired in the u.s. instead of having to ship them to taiwan or india to keep your manufacturers warranty.

 

[Stormtalon]

I'm a Mac user as well who would much prefer a web-based or Flash-based solution to a thick client. Beyond the Mac vs PC debate, it is a lot easier to use a friend's computer when you're there or switch client machines and not lose any of your stuff. This isn't World of Warcraft we're playing, this is D&D. I'd prefer a much simpler interface and a web client to a thick client with lots of doo-dads.

Oh, please, no. Web/flash-based is completely unsuitable for something of this scale. Barring the vagaries of the mix of different browsers these days, you'd have to download all the graphics fresh each time you logged in. No thanks -- I'll take a thick client any day over the overly-hyped, always under-performing web-based crap.

 

[WizarDru]

Furthermore, while I doubt that multi-platform compatibililty is the central key to WoW's success, it is a competitive advantage over other fantasy IPs. If I was WotC, I'd be very concerned about granting my key competitors in the fantasy play mindspace any competitive advantage.

I'd say it was a competitive advantage for Blizzard in the Mac realm, certainly....developing a MMORPG for the underserved Mac market. I mean, other than WoW, the only real large-scale MMO for the Mac is Everquest I (!) or Second Life...and the EQ Mac version arrived four years after EQ's launch and lacked some of the core features. WoW is unique in doing a simultaneous client launch....but Blizzard has a long-standing history of doing this with all their products. This is why they are always best-sellers on the mac side, as their one of the few companies that releases A-list titles on the mac, and day-and-date of the PC releases, to boot. This is very rare, though.

The market is also vastly different for MMORPGs versus pen-and-paper RPGs. D&D is the 800-lb. gorilla, as I'm sure you know better than most, Charles. Whither WotC, so goes the industry (and hence a large portion of the kerfluffle about 4e is the fact that everyone has to react to WotC's move, like it or not). In the MMORPG realm, there are MANY competitors, and the success of WoW came as much of a surprise to Blizzard as anyone else. No one expected it to have such phenomenal success, especially with established successes in place like Everquest and Lineage. WoW's dominance of the market was not assumed at launch...in fact it was widely viewed as possibly being too-late to the party to make a meaningful dent. That seems ludicrous in hindsight, but at the time, there was no guarantee of success for Blizzard.

I suspect that's often true, but, ironically, WotC is a very Mac-friendly company. The large art, graphic design, and layout departments are dominated by Macs, but Macs are also common in R&D and even the business side of things (and, of course, the IT department that supports all these machines). So it's not blindness to the Mac that led WotC in this direction.

No, but being friendly to USING macs isn't the same as being friendly to DEVELOPING on macs. And I don't know what kind of development team WotC has in-house, if any...but I'm guessing the availability of mac-specific developers and associated cost may be a factor...but I'm generally pretty ignorant of the market in this regard. One could validly argue that if they went with a browser-based solution they wouldn't have to worry about that, but there are drawbacks to that approach...and frankly without knowing what data WotC has at it's fingertips and what criteria they're planning by, I can't say how wise the decision is to ignore Macs.

I still maintain, however, that Mac users have long experienced this sort of treatment. Seeing as how Apple was founded on the backs of the computer hobbyist and amateur developers and clubs, this isn't that surprising. People will find a way, if they desire a solution badly enough...the open-source movement is a pure example of that. I wouldn't be typing this in FireFox right now if it didn't.

 

[Doc_Klueless]

Final assembly happens in the U.S. (or Ireland for the euro market) and yuo can actually get them repaired in the u.s. instead of having to ship them to taiwan or india to keep your manufacturers warranty.

Weeeell, according to the tracking software that followed the route of my computer came... well, straight to me from Shanghai China, unless UPS assembled my computer.

 

[The Hound]

I just took a look at the operating systems poll that was linked to earlier. By my calculation, Mac/Linux/Unix/Other account for 42% of Enworld users (Enworld's poll feature seems to have a math bug - their percentages add up to more than 100%). This jives with my casual observation over the years that gamers tend to be much less Windows centric than the general population.

Thus WOTC may be locking out a very large chunk of their potential customer base. However, that's only for their VTT, right? I can't think of any reason that they would have to design secure online magazine access in such a way that Mac and Linux users can't access it with any up to date browser.