Some D&D Insider bits (Update 9/13: Lots of new info)

[Irda Ranger]

he D&D game table and the character builder are windows applications driven by a 3D-engine (DirectX based)

Best news of the day!

Right, so long as you don't mind excluding all D&D players with Mac or Linux. This could have been OpenGL or something else cross-platform. I know that my group is unusual (evenly split between Mac and PC), but it's a shame Wizards came out of the gate with a design that simply can't be easily ported, when there are easy ways to do it.

 

[Glyfair]

Right, so long as you don't mind excluding all D&D players with Mac or Linux.

Excluding those with Mac or Linux, who are also without access to Windows (though emulation or otherwise).

This could have been OpenGL or something else cross-platform.

At this point I thought it was common knowledge that WotC already had an in house engine based on DirectX. While I can understand those Mac and Linux fans wanting it available on their platform, you can hardly fault them for not wanting to pay to redevelop that from the beginning (especially since it would likely delay the project for a significant amount of time).

 

[Irda Ranger]

Excluding those with Mac or Linux, who are also without access to Windows (though emulation or otherwise).

Woo-hoo! All I have to do is buy two operating systems, plus emulation software! You realize that to emulate Windows I have to buy (1) emulation software, and (2) Windows itself? Neither Mac nor Linux can emulate DirectX well natively. And I have to pay more for it than the OEM's (Dell, HP, etc.) do when building a PC. It would cost over $200 to implement on my Mac, and that's before the DDI subscription.

At this point I thought it was common knowledge that WotC already had an in house engine based on DirectX. While I can understand those Mac and Linux fans wanting it available on their platform, you can hardly fault them for not wanting to pay to redevelop that from the beginning (especially since it would likely delay the project for a significant amount of time).

Yes, but that's the point: Pay to "redevelop". My question is: why was it developed on a Windows-only platform in the first place? The moment someone said "Let's use DirectX" they knew that there would be re-development costs for porting the system to non-Windows systems.

This is especially troublesome in a game that depends on group play. An established D&D group with say, 5-7 members (4-6 players, plus DM) which has one non-Windows user will have to choose between (1) the entire group not using DDI, and (2) excluding their non-conforming player from online play. Isn't that lovely.

So what WotC has done here is create a system that either (1) denies WotC the DDI subscriber fees for entire groups (bad for shareholders), or (2) encourage groups to purge their non-Windows players (bad for everyone).

So pardon me if I take a moment to point out the less than smart choices WotC has chosen to make here.

 

[Piratecat]

Apparently Didier Monin has been answering a lot of questions on the D&D Insider on the WotC forums since the middle of last week.

Scott Rouse introduced me to Didier Monin after the ENnies ceremony at GenCon. Seems like a smart, competent guy. Good to see he's answering questions.

 

[Glyfair]

Scott Rouse introduced me to Didier Monin after the ENnies ceremony at GenCon. Seems like a smart, competent guy. Good to see he's answering questions.

Yea, just not blogging about it (Which is why it took so long to catch these bits. Thanks to WotC having a search that works).

 

[Oldtimer]

This could have been OpenGL or something else cross-platform.

I could be mistaken, since I do business applications and not games, but OpenGL would surely only be a replacement for Direct3D, not the whole of DirectX. I don't know how much of DirectX the engine uses, but it could be a whole lot more they would need to replace.

DirectX is a proven games architecture - I can easily see how it makes sense for them to go there first. It's just the old 80/20 rule at work. There's nothing stupid with picking the easy fruit first.

That said, I'd like to join in support for Mac and Linux versions of DDI as soon as possible. Hopefully Radiant Machine already has some early designs on that.

 

[Zurai]

I could be mistaken, since I do business applications and not games, but OpenGL would surely only be a replacement for Direct3D, not the whole of DirectX. I don't know how much of DirectX the engine uses, but it could be a whole lot more they would need to replace.

I do games, so I feel qualified to answer this

DirectX is a proven games architecture - I can easily see how it makes sense for them to go there first. It's just the old 80/20 rule at work. There's nothing stupid with picking the easy fruit first.

DirectX is nothing of the sort. DirectX is a combination of APIs - application programming interfaces. All DirectX does is let you access the hardware in a variety of ways; drawing a line on the screen (DirectDraw), displaying a 3d polygon (Direct3D), playing a .wav file (DirectSound), etc. There is no "game architecture" involved at all. Typically speaking, only Direct3D is really heavily used in the industry. Most of the other components are either done manually or aren't used.

What you seem to be thinking is that DirectX provides a generic game engine. The engine is the architecture of the game, how you go from pressing the space bar to firing a bullet complete with graphics and sound. There are generic engines out there, but DirectX doesn't even remotely resemble one.

 

[Mercule]

Yes, but that's the point: Pay to "redevelop". My question is: why was it developed on a Windows-only platform in the first place? The moment someone said "Let's use DirectX" they knew that there would be re-development costs for porting the system to non-Windows systems.

It's a trade-off. They can give a robust* system to the vast majorty of their users and potential audience, and later fill in the gaps. Or, they could use something cross platform, like Java, which has its own set of problems.

I have no problems with Mac or Linux. Both are fine OSes. I do find it petulant, however, when people call WotC "less than smart" because WotC hasn't catered to their own niche within a niche. Instead, WotC has gone with what their own market research has indicated to be the best service to the most people.

* If the basic archetecture isn't sound, it doesn't matter what OS or platform the tool may or may not run under.

 

[Andre]

Ok, I admit I'm a bit confused on the details about this. Here are a couple situations - anyone know the answers?

1. The GM has an account and logs in. Three players also log in, but none have their own account. Each has two PC's. IIRC, each account holder can store only a few characters (10?) What happens to the players' PC's? Do they store under the GM's account (which counts against his total)? Do they not store at all, meaning they have to be re-created each session? Something else?

2. The GM has an account and logs in. One player, who also has an account, logs in. The GM "owns" 20 virtual minis. The player "owns" 15 virtual minis. Can the GM use all 35 minis in the game, or only the 20 owned by his account?

 

[Glyfair]

Ok, I admit I'm a bit confused on the details about this. Here are a couple situations - anyone know the answers?

I doubt even WotC knows the answers, yet. Of course, they have a better idea than we do. They are still working on it (note they don't even know if they are charging for the additional minis and how much).