Multiple points here but I don't feel like breaking up your post, so I'll just reply to them one by one.
1) It's not a monthly charge *for the program*. The monthly charge is for D&Di which includes the Compendium (ie, the rules), the Dungeon and Dragon magazines and access to download the full version of the Character Builder. There is no monthly access fee for using the Character Builder.
2) If it's so easy to do, then let's see you do it. It's written in a .NET language. We don't know which language they are using and, guess what? C++ is a .NET language now. So, this isn't a valid argument.
3) Your third complaint about intricate computer programs shouldn't have to be paid for monthly is covered by my first response.
Bottom line: no one is holding a gun to your head telling you that you *have* to use the D&Di character builder. Please, continue to use Wonko's sheet. I still use it from time to time myself (and am still waiting on the A.8 release!) In the meantime, I have access to the character builder which is fully up-to-date and functional. No Excel 2007 required, by the way. Sure, Wonko's sheet is nice to keep on a flash drive, but at the end of the day, you still need to have Excel 2007 installed on a PC in order to use it.
With the D&Di character builder, I'm thinking of testing it with the Western Digital app which lets you install programs on a portable harddrive and access them on any PC. If it works there, then portability is no problem.
Ahem...
I know all that... Still it's greed...
1. Obviously it's not a monthly charge for the program, but the program is about one of the only useful things I found there. Plus it's the most useful.
2. Duh, C++ has been in .NET for ages. I'm a programmer and computer scientist by profession, I should know. I also know that there's a bit compiling version of C++ as well, since its performance is far better. As for whether something is easy, sure, I've done .NET before, and it requires no skill whatsoever. That being the case, WotC should have come up with something way better. I damn tested the thing and I personally think they fail their programming practices, systems analysis and design, and their user interface design. As for implementing similar programs in older and bit-compiling programming languages, you presume too much. I have, and much more complex than this. Databases, Data compression, Interactive computer graphics, Traffic control systems, Command line and GUI. You name it, I've probably done them all before to pretty much such a precise and particular extent and tested them myself (every single possible way of screwing it up that I could think of, and I'm good at finding flaws in programs) that nobody else could think of anything else to test, and they've worked fine. I've contributed to open source myself a number of times. So if you think I don't know what I'm talking about, think again. WotC's Character Builder was badly done. They could have done much better with .NET. A LOT better. Performance is slow too. Hence my argument is VALID. Why do I not make one myself if I say it's so easy? Simple. Because I have work to attend to, and a lot of computers to take care of, not to mention trying to think of a good process and program that will suit my company's needs correctly. This WotC Character Builder is not much different from the partly automatic database, tracking and alerting system that I did for a previous company in like what? 5 days maximum? In an old bit-compiling and much faster and quicker loading programming language too. So yeah, my point is valid and Wonko's work is far better than WotC's Character Builder at this point in time. Hence the greed part. Sure. Charge for the Insider, but not for such a Character Builder in its current condition. WotC would do well to take this as constructive criticism and simply do what I would do if I received the same criticisms. Think about it, improve, innovate and optimize. I'm not trying to brag or anything. The point from the very beginning was that WotC should not be so greedy as to charge for something so flawed. I personally tested it and it has many flaws. Why charge yet? I personally wouldn't even let it get past open beta stage if it were my decision. Sure, charge when it's good and working well, but not like this.
3. Like I said, it shouldn't even get past open beta in its current condition. Hence the validity of my point that charging for it now is greed in its worst sense.
Finally, why are you even assuming that I said WotC was forcing me to buy their product? I was merely making an academic and technical criticism of the matter. I personally wouldn't even bother to subscribe or buy such products. They're not my priority.
)
