Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 5536179" data-attributes="member: 27160">OK; a once-a-month download doesn't bother me, but I can see that others might find value in this.Fine - if you happen to see the need/use for integration.  For players on the VTT this could be a marginal advantage - for my group playing face-to-face with character sheets we print out (and, if neccessary, re-print during play) it's not really useful.  All we want is something that lets us generate characters with rules text as we are using it correctly on the cards, etc.  As a DM, I just want monster cards for the monsters I'm using.  The two utilities don't need to "integrate".  Nor do the (putative) ones to generate treasure cards, battle map prints etc., etc.With the offline CB my players (who were subscribers - one still is) could use the CB at home with the campaign file I sent them.  They could also use either their laptop or my copy while we were playing.  We never needed to use it anywhere else, but even if I did I can see it being in a convention where I have my laptop but no internet access, in any case.  I don't really count this as a "win" for either option - both have places they aren't available - internet access being the big limitation on the new CB.Good point - maybe houserules will make it to the new CB yet.My guess is they just aren't interested in putting resource into it because they don't own the content and don't see value in getting to.  Even the offline CB had pretty poor houserule capability.Doesn't need online CB; just give subscribers access to a "campaign file area" that players joining the campaign will automatically download to their CB copy.  The character vault and campaign file access can be controlled by license registration, as I said before.This is Amazon US, I assume?  I haven't seen it over here.  Can you get an actual downloaded file of the music as well?  If you can, it sounds excellent (but equivalent to a combined online and offline CB, not just an online one).Sure, I have webmail - but I can have a local copy on my PC as well as the server version, if I want.Hmm, OK - I don't really call that the cloud - it's just renting server space/functionality, and it was around well before virtualisation or real asset sharing.  I've had the facility to store a webpage at my ISP since around 1995, I think.Yes, I can see some coordination advantages there - but you're still SOL if your venue has no internet access.  So far, I am seeing advantages to having both online and offline versions, but not exclusively online access.  The codebase could even be the same, and the offline version could have a start-up setup charge; that would be awesome.If they did it as I would prefer, I could do the setup offline and then upload just the bits I need to share (campaign file, including any houserule elements - nothing else unless we're running over the WotC VTT).I see one serious advantage of online there - version synchronisation.  Although, that is also a failing, in that if I decide I loathe an update, I can't exclude it.  Other than that, I see a balance of plusses and minuses - with the best solution being to have both online and offline with the same database and rules engine.Well, I did say "not ideal".  I think the language choice was poor, but it's too late to fix it, now.  And surely there is an open source emulator out there by now?Agreed - it's one advantage for the switch, but not for an online CB per se.  Offline that also works on Mac (and *NIX) would be better, IMV.Good point about system differences and synchronisation, but what if some folks don't want the latest "update"?  What if I think Magic Item rarity sucks (for example), and I don't want to have my CB "updated" for that?  This is part of what I mean by "the new CB is under WotC's control, not the users'".As to the front end, I don't see the rules engine for character formulation needing to integrate with anything?  Even using wetware computing and a pencil, character generation is separate from run-time for the game.As I said above - good point, but doesn't allow for me not wanting specific "updates".Fair point - although using a standard base environment/GUI engine makes this easier - the GUI engine provider has all those headaches, not you.  E.g., they could make an offline CB that uses Silverlight for runtime but sits on your hard drive rather than a server.Mea culpa - I overstated.  Put another way, WotC wants more control over how, where and why users use the product, and they have taken steps to increase the attractiveness of the new CB over the old to the extent of deliberately withholding content from the old while still claiming to support it.Sure - my bad feeling towards WotC in this area is not because I feel they have not given me, personally, what I paid for.  It's that they have withdrawn a perfectly good product that I was using and paying for, and that I would happily have paid more for, had they asked me to.  They have then replaced that product with something that I have no control over, no option to freeze and continue using should they take a path I dislike, and no guarantee whatsoever that it will remain available in the future whatsoever.Protecting from what?  I bet I could have got a PDF of it shortly after release, had I tried.Given that the switch as likely as not caused a revenue reduction in the short term, I don't see that "going under" was a serious possibility for WotC, let alone for Hasbro.You are referring to the loss of book sales due to folks just using the CB, I assume?  I agree - I see their problem.  I just think the solution chosen was the wrong one.  I think it ties in also to the current slow down in printed product; I think they found they had a bind where they "had to produce" a book a month so the CB update was "worthwhile", but this was degrading quality due to pressure to publish.  But why pay every month for DDI if some months the update is "empty"?I still think a license registration scheme - not in the "you need to be online to use the software" sense but in a "you need a registration to link into the other cool stuff that interfaces with this" sense - would have been a far more attractive offer.  And couple that with paying a setup fee to have the software in the first place - effectively giving it away free and charging just for updates was, um, unwise, I think...</blockquote>

Verification