Why Master Tools became E-Tools


log in or register to remove this ad

I think these were not in a form that was usable outside of their 3-D mapping tool. Cool discovery! Now we know one more area that blew out the budget when they hadn't met base expectations yet (really supporting the core 3 books).
 

Jay Lofstead said:
I think these were not in a form that was usable outside of their 3-D mapping tool. Cool discovery! Now we know one more area that blew out the budget when they hadn't met base expectations yet (really supporting the core 3 books).
That's utterly baseless. Do you really believe that the people working on 3D models are the same people that wrote the core code? "Base expectations" included everything: mapping, 3D monsters, monster sounds, etc. If you're a good software company on a tight deadline, you work on everything at once.
 

And they did use the models. They are part of the Fluid Website now and have offered 2 of them as avatars.

I just wish they would have released them as jpg for the monster portrait section.
 

I fully expect that the person working on the models and integrating them into the digitial environment was the same person (remember that there has been a public statement that there is now _one_ programmer for E-Tools-- they had precious few before the latest incarnation of the team).

Fluid may or may not be a good software company, that I don't wish to debate. Once thing for certain is that they are a very small software company (very little staff). I agree that if it were a larger company with a lot of staff (like a big name game developer), they would have had separate teams for each piece of the puzzle. The limited staff keeps things pretty well sequential rather than parallel. Having worked in software development both on large parallel development teams and in small to single person groups, I completely understand and have experienced the differences. Before I knew any of the details of the history, just by working with the software, I guessed that it was one or maybe two programmers for about 6 months. It turns out it was one programmer for 9 months.

The pieces of the history that have been published over the months shows that Fluid was intent on ultimately building an online gaming engine (based on a verbal agreement with Wizards). Once Hasbro sold those rights out from under Fluid, Fluid had to start over (that was the cool part of the project which means that is where the programmers started--as a professional software engineer, I can say this from all of my personal experience and that of all the people I know). Being that Wizards had not legally contracted with Fluid for the online gaming engine (or anything resembling that), Hasbro could sell those rights without any fear of repercussions from Fluid. Verbal gentleman's agreements don't hold up in court very well since they are verbal contracts at best. Verbal contracts are only enforceable for a year from the agreement date in the US. This all happened more than a year from the start of the project making any hope of a change in licensing "back" to Fluid pointless. Most of the programming staff left when the rights were sold (my impression is it went from maybe three people down to the one that is there now). By Scott at Fluid's own admission, in nine months, they started from scratch and built the character maintenance tool with one programmer. The other threads of failure that doomed this project from early on (besides a lack of a formal contract) were ever changing priorities, the whims of what the programmers wanted to work on next, and complete lack of real project management across the two companies.

In my opinion, the fact that a full-featured character/monster/npc maintenance program was not delivered by the time of the third core rule book, they had missed their market window. That is why we have so many other tools that have been written. To be honest, it either should have been included in one of the books, or released at the same time. There was never any real planning on how to handle the electronic and print versions of the materials. If they had a real plan for the tools, they would have had made sure to get the level of functionality they needed in order to support their publications and have had release schedules with some fixed interval between them (say 30 days after print, the electronic copy is available for purchase and download).

My base expectations for the program was an engine capable of hosting the d20 rules with a build of data for everything in the core books (and really all of the Wizards published products as well). Other features were nice-to-haves, but not a core need. I know that I can draw maps on paper as fast or faster than I can on a computer. However, having something manage all of the numbers for me for character/monster/npc creation and maintenance, I can't begin to be as fast as a computer aid (properly written, of course). Meeting that base level of productivity improvement was the basic need. Anything beyond that is taking a passable tool into a great tool. From a legal perspective, one can argue they just barely did make the passable tool. From a spirit of the idea perspective, they are a LONG way off.
 

Jay,

What is the basis for your statements regarding the contractual relationship between Fluid and WotC?

Unless I misunderstand you, you are claiming that Fluid was operating under a verbal contract to develop an online gaming engine and not a written contract to develop a D&D utility (Master Tools).

Please set me straight and let me know where this information comes from.

Also, in my experience, people who develop 3D models generally have more of an art background and less of a programming background, so it would not generally be practical to switch such people from art to programming. However, someone somewhere generally makes a decision as to how much of a project's budget gets spent on art and how much gets spent on programming.

thanks,

Victor
 

Jay Lofstead said:
I fully expect that the person working on the models and integrating them into the digitial environment was the same person (remember that there has been a public statement that there is now _one_ programmer for E-Tools-- they had precious few before the latest incarnation of the team).
FYI -- Based on things they told us back at the time, and IIRC, they said "the artists" (plural) were working on the 3-D models and "the sound guy" (I think there was just one they mentioned) was working on the sound effects. We also heard from at least two programmers at the time (I think I remember that the other one was named Andy). So from the sounds of things they had more people working on it during the early days than they ended up with by the end of the project.

(Of course, I wouldn't want artists and sound engineers writing code for me anyway, and vice versa.)
 

Victor,

When the announcement came out about Hasbro selling the online gaming rights, there was a flurry of information posted at various places (Wizards' boards and maybe even ENWorld news was where I gathered the bits and pieces--it would be hard to dig up again) saying that doing that kind of work was outside of the arrangement between Wizards and Fluid. Thus, Fluid had to scrap that work because they didn't have license to do it. I do seem to remember specific statements by people involved that Fluid didn't have the rights for online gaming and that Hasbro went ahead and sold the rights without seeing what Fluid was working on (it was not relevant). If they did have license, Hasbro would have had to buy back the rights (buy themselves out of the contract). Based on the amount of work Fluid had done and the news surrounding Hasbro selling the rights, it is extremely doubtful they paid off Fluid so that they could sell the rights again. Given how proud Fluid is of that work, I don't see them being willing to terminate that portion of the contract for less than a pretty major payoff from the deep pockets of big corporate America (I wouldn't be). Also note from Scott at Fluid's recent interview that they didn't formalize the contract for the demo from the PHB until after the product was delivered. He suggested (but didn't explicitly state) that was when they also contracted for the MasterTools product (he suggested that it was one contract that really covered both items--kind of a two step delivery).

The other pieces of information that support the idea is the repeated statements by parties at Wizards, Fluid, and in the community that are close to the project that there was never any consistent direction. It was more a matter of they contracted for some vague notion of software that changed with each new party that was involved in the project (this has been published in probably every interview with someone discussing why things went the way they did). If there were ever any specific contracted deliverables, we would have had a product sooner since they would not have been able to go down any "wrong" paths based on whims of people at Wizards (or Fluid, for that matter). It would have been clear to everyone what the goals were, what features it needed to have, and what the deliverable dates needed to be.

From what I saw on that model site, it is a scanning company. They take laser scans of physical objects and develop wireframe data points for use in graphics applications. The actual painting of the models (much like your average first-person shooter game) would need artists to do the work (build the "skins"). The actual dropping the rendered models into the software would be purely a programmer's job. Much as Davin described, artists and programmers rarely cross over. When they do, the product tends to be really, really bad (not always, but frequently).

The art/programming budget question comes back to the indecision about what they were delivering. If they are devleoping an online gaming environment, art is VERY important. If it is a character maintenance tool, art is important for asthetics, but without the art, the program would still be fully functional.

Please excuse me if I came off harshly. I am of the crowd that has a really good idea what it would take to build the basics of what we all need and am frustrated by the delays and eventual delivery of something that doesn't even meet the minimums. Like most in this camp, I don't have the time to do it myself and didn't get started 2 years ago due to the promises of e-tools (then MasterTools). There are a lot of excuses for what happened with the software. From a customer perspective, I don't believe any of them are valid (granted we didn't fund the development directly so we have no real recourse other than to not buy the product). Now with the continued silence at Fluid (although there is the rumor of a patch this month being spread by Wizards tech support), we can only hope that something more than "throwing it over the wall" happened with the product.

Jay
 

Remove ads

Top