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

[charlesatan]

Re: Miniatures

I wish they were free but I'm open to the possibility that we will be purchasing random virtual booster boxes. But let me quantify that.

For one thing, the miniatures are optional. Optional in the sense that they're providing free alternatives such as tokens to use in the virtual tabletop. If they didn't provide that alternative, then that's just plain horrible.

Second, I haven't played Magic: The Gathering online, but don't they operate on a similar mechanic? Random virtual packs? So it's not out of the question. I think a more important factor in the matter is how much the virtual miniatures will cost. As much as the miniatures? Definite no-no. But if it was say, $1.00 a pack? It might give certain gamers pause.

Third, even with the "basic" DI package, you have a fully playable tool. The miniatures are eyecandy. It's up to you if you're willing to pay for this extra eyecandy or not. Just like that you don't need the actual DI to play D&D 4E. I'm also not surprised if in the feature, they charge for "fancy dice". Again, you don't need the fancy dice to play the game.

 

[charlesatan]

Re: Mac vs PC

In an ideal world with competent staff and enough development time, both platforms would be supported. But right now, as big as WotC is, I think they only have enough resources to develop one, at least with their development sched. So it comes down to a choice whether to support Macs or to support PCs. And their market research have shown there's more of the latter than the former. As a business, you'd want to choose the more numerous demographic. But that's not the only thing affecting the decision. The programmers at WotC might be more familiar with the DirectX interface rather than OpenGL. That could be another factor. Also, as Glyfair said, when you go Linux or Mac, there's a certain expectation that you'll be a minority when it comes to support (not all mp3 players support Macs for example). But then again, Mac owners can run Windows albeit with less-than-optimal convenience (Bootcamp + Windows XP) and same goes for Linux. (Yes, I'm aware that your PC can run OS X too if they really wanted to...)

 

[Glyfair]

Here Didier answers a question about DirectX vs. OpenGL.

Q: Why not use OpenGL instead of DirectX?

A: The decision to develop the 3D engine with DirectX was made for another project, and months before I even started working on the D&DI project.

On top of this 3D engine, we also had our own market research data, and both of these elements participated, with a few others, to make the initial choice of platform for D&DI.

 

[Kaffis]

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.

Because of the supply issues in finding non-DirectX programming talent, probably. OpenGL is pretty niche anymore. You know the whole PC argument that goes "but there are no games on Mac..."? Yeah, that has trickle down effects on other 3-D applications, as it means that pretty much nobody in the last decade has programmed an OpenGL engine outside of John Carmack and team. Everybody else is working on Direct3d because that's where the momentum is and has been for a long time now. Thus, new talent learns DirectX, not OpenGL, because that's what people are hiring. Hence, the aforementioned momentum.

I suppose that there must be some 3d art applications out there, but like I said, niche programmer supply, and they're rarely dealing with the same concerns that game engines are, and the DI tabletop is going to most resemble a game engine.

So, bottom line, Mac and Linux afficianados fall victim to economics. It would cost more money to hire programming talent out of this small pool than the bean counters forecast would be lost in alternate OS user subscriptions. I don't know whether to lay the blame at the Mac folks who always sneered at the notion that they'd care about their lack of game support, or Microsoft's DirectX team and their success at marketting and developing their API as an attractive one to program for. Either way, I doubt it would offer much solace.

 

[howandwhy99]

Honestly, I had no idea they would really make virtual minis. I'm just posting to point out I called it (link).

It was a joke, I swear.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

The only way I can see randomized virtual minis work is one of these options:

1. The virtual minis are dirt cheap compared to the real thing. If you can pay a buck, and get 100 minis, then I imagine a few people wouldn't mind springing $20.00 for 2,000 random minis, even if you need duplicates to use duplicates. Or if you don't need duplicates, maybe $0.10 each, with a built in trading option (presumably tied to a skirmish table where it matters).

2. No duplicates are needed, and the random part is simply what you get next. That is, you've got a "mini account" set up, and you say you want to buy 4 more "commons". It looks at what you have, and then pick randomly from what is left. Still pretty silly, but then it's a known cost to buy the complete set.

3. You can pay a flat fee up front to get the complete line of minis in a set.

 

[BluWolf]

(not aimed at DaveMage) I'm a little tired of people treating D&D Insider like it should be some sort of free community service provided gratis by Wizards. WHY? Why shouldn't Wizards run D&DI with an eye towards cutting a profit? All this moaning about cost . . . I'm certainly not made of money, but I don't begrude a game company trying to provide a cool product for a cost.

But even if Wizards offers randomized virtual boosters of 3D virtual mini's for a cost, if you don't want to pony up you'll still be able to use tokens and your existing 3D virtual minis on the D&D gametable just fine. It's interesting, as this models the RW experience quite closely . . .

I agree with you but with a slightly different twist. I think Hasbro should be using the PNP books to drive folks to their subscription based offering. Even, repeated revenue stream versus spikey, gamble the house on a book model would seem a more attractive business model versus the classic RPG gaming market mechanics.

 

[heirodule]

I really want a sweet character and monster generator that can be used offline.

DI isn't that.

 

[The_Gneech]

Randomized virtual mini booster packs. The concept staggers the imagination.

I suppose that if it's something "unlockable" as part of the service, like an easter egg or something, that would be okay.

But the concept of paying for randomized digital minis? I can't figure out what's worse, that people are entertaining the notion, or that customers might actually respond with anything other than a rude gesture.

Wow.

Should we just build the six-story escalator to nowhere and get in line now, to get it over with?

-The Gneech

 

[The_Universe]

Randomized virtual mini booster packs. The concept staggers the imagination.

I suppose that if it's something "unlockable" as part of the service, like an easter egg or something, that would be okay.

But the concept of paying for randomized digital minis? I can't figure out what's worse, that people are entertaining the notion, or that customers might actually respond with anything other than a rude gesture.

Wow.

Should we just build the six-story escalator to nowhere and get in line now, to get it over with?

-The Gneech

we need the monorail, first! Someone call Leonard Nimoy!