# No Macs? Holy crap did WotC do the math wrong!



## CharlesRyan (Sep 13, 2007)

So we all know that the mac is a minority OS. WotC says that their market research indicates that only a small minority of their gamers use macs. If their data matches other data sources, the size of that minority is less than 10% of home computer users.

Great. DDI can be a success with only 90% of the market.

But for DDI to work (or, at least, for the online tabletop to work), and entire group needs to access DDI. WotC is now building the game around the typical group of 6.

That means that somewhere around 50% of D&D game groups include at least one mac user.

Can DDI be a success with only 50% of the market? Or is WotC expecting these groups to say sayonara to their mac-using buddies?

Either way, for a company that's normally very good at recognizing the gaming group--not the gaming individual--as the key unit, I think they've made a fairly serious miscalculation.


----------



## Danzauker (Sep 13, 2007)

Don't tell me!!!

I won't buy D&D Insider until they come out with a Linux version of it!!!

Aren't there Linux using D&D playere around here???

Hey, I thought all geeks used Linux and played D&D? They are both "class featuers" for geeks!!! Where are all good steraotypes one could rely on gone???


----------



## Nifft (Sep 13, 2007)

Danzauker said:
			
		

> I won't buy D&D Insider until they come out with a Linux version of it!!!



 One step at a time, friend, one step at a time. 

Once they have an OpenGL Mac version, the Linux argument is a lot easier to make. (I doubt you'll ever see a supported version, but you don't really care about the support, right?)

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 13, 2007)

You're missing something:
The windows related tools are not for existing gamer groups that manage to meet regularly. They are for those gamer groups that can no longer meet due to the fact that they live in different areas now or have totally different schedules. It is for those that want to play the game online because they can't find a group in their area. 

Basically, it's an entire new "group of groups". Sure, you will now miss 5-15 % of the possible full market, but you don't miss out just because 5-15 % of each existing group owns a Mac instead of a Windows PC. Because that are not the groups the software is primarily aimed at.

What also might be interesting to know: The decision for using a Windows / DirectX based Engine was made before the current project began. Basically, the guys who were doing it decided for some reasons to make a 3D Engine and base it on DirectX. Maybe the market analysis for the original use of the 3D looks different for the DDI tools, but it was too late to change around, especially not in the time frame that was available.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Sep 13, 2007)

Are Mac and Linux users even allowed to play D&D? 

Apparently those of us with older computers are not expected to like Video games.

But back on topic before I get flamed or a three day vacation

I think WOTC is trying hard to shoot themselves inteh foot with DI. Something other than what you always see on the WOTC site should be up now. So far all the complaints of WOTC intending people to pay for previously free product is coming true in spades

And if I wer a mac or Linux user, I would not hold my breath.


----------



## RFisher (Sep 13, 2007)

CharlesRyan said:
			
		

> Either way, for a company that's normally very good at recognizing the gaming group--not the gaming individual--as the key unit, I think they've made a fairly serious miscalculation.




Thank you! It's nice to see someone else's numbers match mine.

But then, people always seem quick to dismiss my experience with cross-platform development in favor of their own guesses about it.


----------



## Danzauker (Sep 13, 2007)

Dice4Hire said:
			
		

> Apparently those of us with older computers are not expected to like Video games.




Who said that you have to own an old PC to use Linux?

Granted, in the MS world as soon as you get your hands on the brand new release of Vista you inevitably begin to think: "kewl! now I'm running to the shop in order to buy a new PC to actually run it!!!" (see the diatribe between "operating system environment" vs. "system operated environment").

I simply use it because I prefer it even on my newest machine.


----------



## SavageRobby (Sep 13, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> You're missing something:
> The windows related tools are not for existing gamer groups that manage to meet regularly. They are for those gamer groups that can no longer meet due to the fact that they live in different areas now or have totally different schedules. It is for those that want to play the game online because they can't find a group in their area.
> 
> Basically, it's an entire new "group of groups". Sure, you will now miss 5-15 % of the possible full market, but you don't miss out just because 5-15 % of each existing group owns a Mac instead of a Windows PC. Because that are not the groups the software is primarily aimed at.




I don't think Charles - or anyone else - has missed out on that. Meeting regularly or not, if 10% of the population uses Macs, and WotC assumes group of 5-6, then the Math is simple: around half of the groups (new or not) will likely have at least one non-Windows user.

I can just imagine the email, "Hey guys, WotC has a new release, and even though we live on opposite sides of the world now, we can get the old group back together again! Well, except Joe, because he uses Mac. But screw him, we didn't like him anyways."


FWIWWIM, I think its a silly decision, too, even if it is a practical one. And using the "dog ate my homework" excuse about having the platform already picked out is pretty weak.


----------



## Stormtalon (Sep 13, 2007)

Unfortunately, the DirectX decision seems to be already set in stone.  While it makes it tougher, it doesn't yet rule out getting it running natively on the Mac.  There's a few folks (myself included), who have been helpfully pointing out ways that WotC could quickly, easily and (probably) somewhat cheaply support at least the Mac users (caveat: would be Intel Macs only) -- and that's thru TransGaming's Cider product.

It's not the same as a true port, and thus not what I'd consider ideal, but I think it would be an acceptable start -- and I don't even OWN an Intel Mac.

Yet.


----------



## wedgeski (Sep 13, 2007)

RFisher said:
			
		

> But then, people always seem quick to dismiss my experience with cross-platform development in favor of their own guesses about it.



There are also people *with* cross-platform experience (*puts hand up*) who disagree with you.


----------



## delericho (Sep 13, 2007)

CharlesRyan said:
			
		

> If their data matches other data sources, the size of that minority is less than 10% of home computer users.
> 
> Great. DDI can be a success with only 90% of the market.
> 
> ...




Does not follow. You've assumed that the distribution of Mac users is even across gaming groups. However, I have frequently seen people thinking of buying a new computer advised to look at what the people around them are already using, and buy accordingly (to facilitate sharing of software, and so forth). If this advice is actually taken, the effect would be a 'clustering' of Mac users, which means some groups would be entirely, or almost entirely, comprised of Mac users, while a great many others have no Mac users at all.

I do however agree that the DI would be much better served to be platform-neutral (hey, it's not as though it _that_ hard to do).


----------



## GlassJaw (Sep 13, 2007)

Developing software for PC only, especially the initial release, is fairly common in the software industry.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Sep 13, 2007)

I'm sure they just want to discourage those arrogant "My Mac is so much better than your Windows" bastards from playing D&D.


----------



## hexgrid (Sep 13, 2007)

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> I'm sure they just want to discourage those arrogant "My Mac is so much better than your Windows" bastards from playing D&D.




More likely, they knew they weren't up to the challenge of creating software that would be acceptable to the more discerning and sophisticated Mac user base.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Sep 13, 2007)

I think you should blame Apple, not WotC...


----------



## Nifft (Sep 13, 2007)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Developing software for PC only, especially the initial release, is fairly common in the software industry.



 So is delivering buggy software, and so is failing to deliver anything.

Good practices are depressingly uncommon.

Cross-platform development is surprisingly easy, it just requires some forethought, which is depressingly uncommon.

Depressed, -- N


----------



## Mercule (Sep 13, 2007)

delericho said:
			
		

> Does not follow. You've assumed that the distribution of Mac users is even across gaming groups.




Exactly.  There is at least one poster 'round these parts who has been banging his drum pretty loudly over the fact that his entire group, or nearly so, is non-Windows users.  That right there frees up another dozen groups to use DDI.

Besides, as has been stated, the target audience for the VTT isn't groups with a currently functional membership.  It's groups with a scattered membership that can't get together to game.  My college group had one guy who loved Macs.  Given the choice between gaming with 5 of my best friends and leaving one guy on the sidelines or not gaming with any of the 6, I'm going to go with the former option.  If/when WotC makes a Mac-compatible VTT app, that 6th will be welcome to join.  Ditto if he jumps to PC for his next upgrade.

Either way, there is no impact to a currently enabled group.  A certain set of new groups/players are enabled, however.

The only other significant item that is Windows-only is the chargen tool.  Paper has worked for a thirty years.  It'll continue to work for the forseeable future.  If you've gotta have your computer toy, though, I'm sure PCGen will make itself compatible with 4E.


----------



## hong (Sep 13, 2007)

SavageRobby said:
			
		

> I don't think Charles - or anyone else - has missed out on that. Meeting regularly or not, if 10% of the population uses Macs, and WotC assumes group of 5-6, then the Math is simple: around half of the groups (new or not) will likely have at least one non-Windows user.




No, M_R is right. The DDI is aimed at helping people who don't have a group meet up for gaming. In this circumstance, the fact that one person can't use DDI won't cause the rest of the group to also abandon DDI (because there is no group); it just means that _if_ a group gets formed, that one person won't be in it.


----------



## Wombat (Sep 13, 2007)

According to the San Francisco Chronicle's Business section earlier this week, Mac sales last quarter made up about 2.8% of the U.S. market.

At that point, it simply is not economically feasible to cater to them.


----------



## CleverName (Sep 13, 2007)

Prepare for flip-floppage:

I do hope that Wizards will quickly make the decision. I use Windows, SuSE (a little) and a Mac -- my macbook pro is hands-down my best machine. I understand why WotC would start out with a windows product, but I hope they will quickly change -- based on market data. 

I think that, for the most part, since we are really talking _laptops _here, Wizards may be using old data: 



> *According to NPD, Apple’s U.S. retail notebook market share for June 2007 was 17.6 percent, an increase of 2.2 percentage points over the same period last year when Apple posted a 15.4 percent market share.*
> 
> As well as the notebooks are doing, Apple’s overall standing among computer makers is up too.
> 
> ...




FYI


----------



## theredrobedwizard (Sep 13, 2007)

How's about you just get your silly little white plasticy computerbox to run DirectX?  Isn't there also that fake Windows environment you can run so that your computer will run Windows based utilities?  Heck, I had that on an iMac back in 1998; it can't be *that* difficult to do on a new Macbook.

-TRRW


----------



## XCorvis (Sep 13, 2007)

I've created an Operating Systems poll over here:
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=207126

Let's see how EN World compares to WotC's data sources.


----------



## GlassJaw (Sep 13, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> So is delivering buggy software, and so is failing to deliver anything.




What does that have to do with anything?  What a lame and useless counterpoint.

Again, I fail to see why this is a surprise to anyone.  Heck, _MOST _software, especially games, isn't MAC-ready at launch.  

I also disagree that cross-platform development is "surprisingly easy".  If it was, why don't more developers do it?  When I get quotes from developers, MAC development always adds time and money.  And when you weigh that time and added cost against the amount of additional consumers you will reach, the decision is fairly easy.


----------



## JDJblatherings (Sep 13, 2007)

If it's web based it should work with ANY modern computer able to get to the web. 
They decided to have development cost them more by not building for everyone.


----------



## Horacio (Sep 13, 2007)

XCorvis said:
			
		

> I've created an Operating Systems poll over here:
> http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=207126
> 
> Let's see how EN World compares to WotC's data sources.



 They have decided to use the last DirectX iteration that doesn't work in virtual machines or emulators yet


----------



## krissbeth (Sep 13, 2007)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> I think you should blame Apple, not WotC...




Apple is perfect.
Steve Jobs is all-knowing.
Where's my Kool-Aid?


----------



## hexgrid (Sep 13, 2007)

theredrobedwizard said:
			
		

> Isn't there also that fake Windows environment you can run so that your computer will run Windows based utilities?  Heck, I had that on an iMac back in 1998; it can't be *that* difficult to do on a new Macbook.
> -TRRW




I doubt buying and installing Windows on your Mac just to run the DI would be worth it, especially if you're using a Mac because you specifically don't like Windows.


----------



## Nifft (Sep 13, 2007)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> What does that have to do with anything?  What a lame and useless counterpoint.
> 
> I also disagree that cross-platform development is "surprisingly easy".  If it was, why don't more developers do it?



 Please, please, don't be a fish in a barrel.

It's not that hard to write *good* software. Why don't more developers do that?

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Stormtalon (Sep 13, 2007)

Wombat said:
			
		

> According to the San Francisco Chronicle's Business section earlier this week, Mac sales last quarter made up about 2.8% of the U.S. market.
> 
> At that point, it simply is not economically feasible to cater to them.




As a whole, or consumer sales only?  First order of business when calculating your market is knowing what numbers to exclude.  For example, I'd be willing to bet that the 2.8% figure you're quoting includes bulk sales to large corporations.  Those sales need to be taken out of the calculations, as they're not part of the target market.  Corporate computers are always behind heavy firewalls and gaming thru them is virtually impossible (not to mention usually a firing offense).

What you need to do is try to find a market figure that is specifically counting JUST home and personal purchases -- _that's_ the number you want to look at as those folks are going to be your customers.  I'm pretty sure WotC has already done this, and still for some reason decided it's not fully worth it (my guess is the already-created DX engine played a large part in that decision, moreso than market numbers), which is why I and others are pointing out tools that _will_ make the cost of conversion reasonably trivial.


----------



## Fobok (Sep 13, 2007)

Horacio said:
			
		

> They have decided to use the last DirectX iteration that doesn't work in virtual machines or emulators yet




Are you sure? DirectX 10 is the latest and it only works on Windows Vista. I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere that DDI would be Vista-only.


----------



## JDJblatherings (Sep 13, 2007)

Wombat said:
			
		

> According to the San Francisco Chronicle's Business section earlier this week, Mac sales last quarter made up about 2.8% of the U.S. market.
> 
> At that point, it simply is not economically feasible to cater to them.




Tell that to the companies I paid over 2 grand for software in the past year. 


There are over 20 million macs in the world.  Not a small market.


----------



## Aeolius (Sep 13, 2007)

I recently started a new 3.5e campaign, which I run via IRC. As a Mac user, I cannot use the D&DI applications, thus 4e already is already alienating me and, by default, my gaming group. 

   Should I get the urge to try a virtual tabletop, klooge.werks coupled with dundjinni and CrystalBall should suffice.

   Whether 4e will work for a campaign set entirely underwater, using monster PCs in the World of Greyhawk, is another matter altogether.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Sep 13, 2007)

theredrobedwizard said:
			
		

> How's about you just get your silly little white plasticy computerbox to run DirectX?  Isn't there also that fake Windows environment you can run so that your computer will run Windows based utilities?  Heck, I had that on an iMac back in 1998; it can't be *that* difficult to do on a new Macbook.
> 
> -TRRW



Sure, it just costs $200+.  You have to buy the emulation software ($80) and a full Windows licenses ($ depends on version).



			
				hong said:
			
		

> No, M_R is right. The DDI is aimed at helping people who don't have a group meet up for gaming. In this circumstance, the fact that one person can't use DDI won't cause the rest of the group to also abandon DDI (because there is no group); it just means that _if_ a group gets formed, that one person won't be in it.



The geographically distributed group still has the fun time of excluding one or more of its possible members.

The OP is right.  Because DDI must be used in groups, a significant number of groups will always be looking for alternatives to DDI - one that doesn't make them exclude some of their friends.  I really think it's a bad business decision.


----------



## green slime (Sep 13, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Please, please, don't be a fish in a barrel.
> 
> It's not that hard to write *good* software. Why don't more developers do that?
> 
> Cheers, -- N




Once again, I find myself agreenig with Nifft.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 13, 2007)

delericho said:
			
		

> Does not follow. You've assumed that the distribution of Mac users is even across gaming groups. However, I have frequently seen people thinking of buying a new computer advised to look at what the people around them are already using, and buy accordingly (to facilitate sharing of software, and so forth). If this advice is actually taken, the effect would be a 'clustering' of Mac users, which means some groups would be entirely, or almost entirely, comprised of Mac users, while a great many others have no Mac users at all.




That's happened to us mostly with just console games. Most of our preferences for Mac vs PC were already being set through our experiences in high school, college, and work. In the groups I play with, I can pick out only one platform switch that occurred after the gaming groups were formed (with the exception of shifts from early use of the Apple II) and that was for work and personal reasons, not to facilitate sharing of software. The rest of us, it seems, are pretty set in our ways.


----------



## WizarDru (Sep 13, 2007)

Stormtalon said:
			
		

> What you need to do is try to find a market figure that is specifically counting JUST home and personal purchases -- _that's_ the number you want to look at as those folks are going to be your customers.  I'm pretty sure WotC has already done this, and still for some reason decided it's not fully worth it (my guess is the already-created DX engine played a large part in that decision, moreso than market numbers), which is why I and others are pointing out tools that _will_ make the cost of conversion reasonably trivial.




While I'm willing to believe that 2.8% figure is not relevant to the installed D&D user-base who would potentially use the DDI stuff, I think even if the installed percentage of mac users were radically higher, say 28%, that it still would be economically more viable to make it PC only, at least at first.

Can't newer mac users make their intel-based mac dual-boot?  I mean, mac users have been the red-headed stepchildren for years, in this respect.  Just ask folks using Tivo Desktop, Microsoft products or the vast majority of game software.


----------



## variant (Sep 13, 2007)

theredrobedwizard said:
			
		

> How's about you just get your silly little white plasticy computerbox to run DirectX?  Isn't there also that fake Windows environment you can run so that your computer will run Windows based utilities?  Heck, I had that on an iMac back in 1998; it can't be *that* difficult to do on a new Macbook.
> 
> -TRRW




These new Mac users could probably just install Windows.


----------



## Horacio (Sep 13, 2007)

Nothing, delete, please


----------



## CleverName (Sep 13, 2007)

Horacio said:
			
		

> They have decided to use the last DirectX iteration that doesn't work in virtual machines or emulators yet





Actually, I stumbled upon this yesterday: CodeWeavers 

They have a directx engine built in and it does NOT require you to run Windows at all -- or more importantly to buy windows, at all. 

Still, we are talking about spending ~$60 to run DDI or other windows apps, but it may be a workaround until WotC ports the software.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 13, 2007)

CharlesRyan said:
			
		

> So we all know that the mac is a minority OS. WotC says that their market research indicates that only a small minority of their gamers use macs. If their data matches other data sources, the size of that minority is less than 10% of home computer users.
> 
> Great. DDI can be a success with only 90% of the market.
> 
> ...




I have to call shenanigans on your statistics. If 10% (or any percentage) of the market uses a Mac, that has no bearing on how many gamers, who play D&D, and are interested in the Online tabletop use Macs. Simple statistics like you're using have little if any bearing on software development like WotC is doing.

I manage a website for a non-profit organization, and our webmaster gives me statistics on the browser and OS of most people who visit us (I say most, because it is possible to use security to mask this). I am sure WotC has many of the same tools (better ones, actually) so they have an idea of the kind of people who visit their site now. Based on that, .8% of the people who visit our site use a Mac. If I were developing software for our group (which is unlikely, but possible) I would design for the PC, because that's who my customers are. 

Beyond the simple numbers I have, WotC actually has the ability to do market research on who uses what platform and plays D&D. I would say that they have a pretty decent handle on their market as a result: far better than any other gaming company.

Based on the numbers, they've made a decision. There is no snubbing of Mac users, it's rather an issue of numbers, money and priority. If you're a Mac user, you should already know about the tools out there to allow you to run PC software. Heck your Mac may have the same video card in it as the PC I'm writing this on right now.

I don't want to sound cruel or anything, heck, I was an Amiga user for many years, and appreciate how annoying the second tier status can be. At the same time, no one made you buy a Mac...that was a decision you and others made for yourselves. For all of the great things about the Mac, the problem is software in certain areas, especially in game terms. It's not WotC's fault, it's not the gaming industry's fault...it's an issue of size and numbers, and that's it. If I were working in video editing, complaining that I couldn't get software on the level of *Final Cut Pro* for my PC would be much the same thing.

So I would not hold my breath waiting for a port over to the Mac, unless there are some far more significant numbers involved.

--Steve


----------



## Nifft (Sep 13, 2007)

SteveC said:
			
		

> For all of the great things about the Mac, the problem is software in certain areas, especially in game terms. It's not WotC's fault, it's not the gaming industry's fault...it's an issue of size and numbers, and that's it.



 I own two Macs and a PC.

My issue is that designing for one platform is a sign of *bad design*.

My preference is for good design. 

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Sep 13, 2007)

CleverName said:
			
		

> I think that, for the most part, since we are really talking _laptops _here, Wizards may be using old data: FYI



 I'm confused.  Why are we really talking about laptops?  If I could use the VTT on my Mac, I would game with my friends in Maine, New York and New Hampshire sitting at my desktop Mac, not using my Powerbook.  


Back to Charles' initial post - three Mac users in my now scattered group.  Since I'm one of the Mac users and I'm the DM, that's one group that won't be playing online with D&D Insider.

That leads to another intereting question.  What percentage of people who like to DM use non-Windows systems.  It would be amusing if they discovered that the people subscribing to D&DI to use the virtual game table were mostly players looking for a game, but most of the DMs used Macs and Linux and so there were very few games to join.


----------



## Zurai (Sep 13, 2007)

JDJblatherings said:
			
		

> There are over 20 million macs in the world.  Not a small market.




And how many of those 20 million macs are business machines? How many of the macs that are not business machines are owned by people that would pay for DDI? How many of THOSE macs are people that do not have a regular gaming group and need the online tabletop to play D&D?
Hint: Signifigantly less than 20 million.

Face it, it's a tiny market.


----------



## Nifft (Sep 13, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> And how many of those 20 million macs are business machines? How many of the macs that are not business machines are owned by people that would pay for DDI? How many of THOSE macs are people that do not have a regular gaming group and need the online tabletop to play D&D?
> Hint: Signifigantly less than 20 million.



 Of the five PCs I used this year, one was mine, free to install software on as I please. The rest were owned by work.

Of the two Macs I used this year, two were mine. 

I honestly think you'll find the proportion of PCs "locked down" and used only for business is much larger than the proportion of Macs.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## GlassJaw (Sep 13, 2007)

green slime said:
			
		

> Once again, I find myself agreenig with Nifft.




Agreeing with what?  That you prefer good software over bad?  Well I prefer good food to bad.  What does that have to do with anything?

The issue is designing for PC and not Mac.



> My issue is that designing for one platform is a sign of bad design.




I call it targeted design.  Why spend resources (time, money, testing, etc) when the return on that resource investment is small?  Ideally, every project (software or otherwise) would have all the bells and whistles you can imagine.  But in the world I live in (and industry I work in), that's unrealistic.  Sometimes you have to make hard designs on features.  The thing is, the PC/Mac design usually isn't one of those tough decisions.


----------



## wedgeski (Sep 13, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> My issue is that designing for one platform is a sign of *bad design*.



Or of market realities (as WotC see them) impacting on business decisions. I write software for a living and would love everything I release to have abundant features, no bugs, and support every OS on the market. The reality is that this is an almost impossible goal for the company I work for, so we compromise in order to get the product out. Same as Wizards. The question is whether the compromises they have opted for are good or bad.

In any case I believe Charles' observation that gametable uptake depends on *group* topology, not *user* topology, to be a very good one.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Sep 13, 2007)

> If it's web based it should work with ANY modern computer able to get to the web.




I think they already said that it is not web based.  

Ideally, the software would be designed to eventually support multiple platforms (and multiple types of clients), but initial development would concentrate on the PC.  While the PC work was in system testing, they'd be doing just enough testing with Mac to verify that the design didn't have any gaping holes.  Of course, this assumes that the people charged with the design have enough experience with cross-platform to do such a design (and ignores the inherited code issue as well).  Welcome to the real world of software management.   

However, my anecdotal experience supports the "cluster" theory of machine users.  I've got a group of 10, and all are PC users.  In contrast, the Mac users I know are from families that use nothing but Macs.  Statistically, there has to be some geographically dispersed groups with X PCs users and 1 or 2 Mac users.  Out of these, however, there will be some where the Mac users are quite happy to fork over enough money to emulate Windows (or already can).  What is the percentage of Mac users that already can?  

Then some people will use it at the gaming table with a projector.  Doesn't matter what the whole group has--only the guy with the projector.


----------



## GlassJaw (Sep 13, 2007)

Crazy Jerome said:
			
		

> Welcome to the real world of software management.




It looks like you, wedgeski, and myself all live in that world.


----------



## Nifft (Sep 13, 2007)

Crazy Jerome said:
			
		

> Of course, this assumes that the people charged with the design have enough experience with cross-platform to do such a design (and ignores the inherited code issue as well).  Welcome to the real world of software management.



 In my experience, the hardest part of development has always been debugging. Guess what testing on multiple platforms helps to expose? 

Though I do grant you it may be harder to find someone with experience doing cross-platform design, I don't think it's always a good trade off to hire someone cheaper and *less experienced* instead.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## CleverName (Sep 13, 2007)

Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> I'm confused.  Why are we really talking about laptops?




We aren't necessarily, I'm looking at trends here. 

1) The laptop is the computer of choice at the gaming table -- look how many times during the DDI announcements the word laptop is used. Look at the pictures they use. 

2) The laptop market is growing at the expense of desktops. Some believe that in the next five years laptop sales will permanently eclipse desktop sales. Every couple of months they do nowadays. link 

3) Apple is coming on strong in the laptop arena. It is the #3 laptop producer currently. link 

So, all that I am saying is that good market data should weigh laptops over desktops.  This would then inflate the numbers in favor of Apple. 

AGAIN, I am not surprised or angry that WotC chose to support PCs first, I think that they will need to look at other platforms_ SOONER than they seem to think_ based on the usage numbers they are flinging around.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Sep 13, 2007)

A very good point by Charles. Look, no one is saying the Mac market isn't small, but the way that Charles spins the numbers like this makes it VERY valid. Of the 10 people that I game with on a semi regular basis for the past 5 years, 5 of them (myself included) are Mac users.

People who I used to game with that I can't now because of distance that I would like to play with using the DI? Of the 8 I can think of 3 of them use Mac. Plus, majority of the game publishers use Macs. While 3% is a valid number for the current Mac market, I would think that number is a lot higher with people that play D&D.

The poll that was linked above has the numbers of PC vs. Mac very close. Does Morrus or someone here have numbers on the visitors to EN World and what OS they are using?


----------



## SteveC (Sep 13, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> I own two Macs and a PC.
> 
> My issue is that designing for one platform is a sign of *bad design*.
> 
> ...



I knew that if I were on the boards long enough, I would eventually disagree with you on something, and here it is.    I guess I've used some cross-platform tools (or, more accurately, was made to use them) in college, and it's the main reason why I ended up as an English major rather than an English plus Comp Sci major.

All I can say in this to be serious is that if you're right, the vast majority of the computing industry uses bad design...which may exactly be what you intended to say in the first place. In that case, I agree with you!

--Steve


----------



## Gentlegamer (Sep 13, 2007)

My understanding is that Macs now use Intel processors and can run Windows . . .


----------



## reanjr (Sep 13, 2007)

Wombat said:
			
		

> According to the San Francisco Chronicle's Business section earlier this week, Mac sales last quarter made up about 2.8% of the U.S. market.
> 
> At that point, it simply is not economically feasible to cater to them.




That's a misleading statistic.  The lifetime of a Mac is more than double that of a Windows PC.  Additionally, a much greater percentage of the Windows PC market is for servers.  Add to the fact that nearly all Linux, BSD, etc. users purchase a Windows PC only to delete Windows.

Mac's share is near 10% from best estimates I've heard.

And it does NOT take more than 10% extra work to make something cross-platform.  It's relatively trivial if you decide to make the effort.


----------



## green slime (Sep 13, 2007)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Agreeing with what?  That you prefer good software over bad?  Well I prefer good food to bad.  What does that have to do with anything?
> 
> The issue is designing for PC and not Mac.
> 
> I call it targeted design.  Why spend resources (time, money, testing, etc) when the return on that resource investment is small?  Ideally, every project (software or otherwise) would have all the bells and whistles you can imagine.  But in the world I live in (and industry I work in), that's unrealistic.  Sometimes you have to make hard designs on features.  The thing is, the PC/Mac design usually isn't one of those tough decisions.




Is it actually possible to make software, which can run on any platform? Yes it is. At the very basic end, we have available to us today Java, and modern web browsers. 

Would the customers be terribly disappointed if we reduced some functionality, but instead could include all users that have an appropriate JVM and a modern web browser, given that they have next to nothing available today? I'd hazard a guess and say No. None of what I have seen in the presentation videos from Gencon suggest a dire "need for DirectX or die trying" attitude, that couldn't be overcome.

It doesn't need more resources, if you do it right from the beginning.


----------



## Zurai (Sep 13, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Of the five PCs I used this year, one was mine, free to install software on as I please. The rest were owned by work.
> 
> Of the two Macs I used this year, two were mine.
> 
> ...




Even if 90% of Windows machines were work-only vs 50% of Macs (which I do NOT believe is the case, statistically irrelevant anecdotes aside), personal Windows machines would still be a vastly larger market.


----------



## Zurai (Sep 13, 2007)

green slime said:
			
		

> Is it actually possible to make software, which can run on any platform? Yes it is. At the very basic end, we have available to us today Java, and modern web browsers.




Java is a LOUSY solution. It has horrible memory management tools, it's slow as molasses in January, and it has problems with certain browsers.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 13, 2007)

SavageRobby said:
			
		

> I don't think Charles - or anyone else - has missed out on that. Meeting regularly or not, if 10% of the population uses Macs, and WotC assumes group of 5-6, then the Math is simple: around half of the groups (new or not) will likely have at least one non-Windows user.
> 
> I can just imagine the email, "Hey guys, WotC has a new release, and even though we live on opposite sides of the world now, we can get the old group back together again! Well, except Joe, because he uses Mac. But screw him, we didn't like him anyways."




I expect it'll look more like:

*Gamers Seeking Gamers*
Looking for players for a 4th edition game on D&DI game table.  Email Bob at bob@bob.com.

Mac users won't email Bob.  Windows users will.  Therefore 100% of Bob's players will be Windows users.

It's only an issue if you have a pre-existing group that is now geographically isolated from one another, and has at least one member who can not or will not locate a Windows box to use for gaming.  Is it really that hard to locate a Windows machine somewhere for a few hours each week?  If it's such a problem, go find one of those places in which people play Counter-Strike for two bucks an hour, and rent a computer that runs DirectX.

Hell, I can probably dig up three older Windows boxes in the next 24 hours that would meet the system specs, and the owners would give them to me for free, just to get them out of their basements.  Having the vast majority of the market share means that there are a ton of people who upgraded and still have their old systems kicking around.  I bet that, for under $50, every single mac user who wants to use the game table could find an old Windows machine for just that purpose.  If they're so desperate to use it, it's probably worth the money.


----------



## Nifft (Sep 13, 2007)

SteveC said:
			
		

> All I can say in this to be serious is that if you're right, the vast majority of the computing industry uses bad design...which may exactly be what you intended to say in the first place. In that case, I agree with you!



 That was not my main point, but IMHO it is accurate. There's a lot of bad software out there. Some of it by design (Microsoft in particular), but the vast majority of it is unintentional.

Software projects are plagued by disproportionate expenses and failures. I'm not saying it's easy to do good software -- it's not. It takes experience and hard work, good planning and agility when things don't go as planned. My point is that compared to writing good software, writing good cross-platform software isn't much harder.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## reanjr (Sep 13, 2007)

SteveC said:
			
		

> I knew that if I were on the boards long enough, I would eventually disagree with you on something, and here it is.    I guess I've used some cross-platform tools (or, more accurately, was made to use them) in college, and it's the main reason why I ended up as an English major rather than an English plus Comp Sci major.




I highly doubt what you were doing in school equates with the real world.  Academic computer science is far removed from real world software engineering.  Assuming the application is written in C or C++ (very likely), two decisions would have made their lives easier and would result in a cross platform product.

Use an intermediary GUI toolkit (wxWindows, GTK, etc.) which runs on top of the underlying platform toolkit (GDI, Cocoa, X).  These toolkits tend to be higher level and _easier_ to use than the native toolkit, saving development time.

Choose OpenGL rather than DirectX.  OpenGL has wider support than DirectX both platform and hardware (more video cards support OpenGL).  OpenGL is a very mature framework (MS used to push it before DirectX) that is well documented and easy to use.  Whether one or the other is easier is probably up for debate, but there are far more tools available for OpenGL than there are for DirectX.

These two decisions would have been the *right* decisions, but the hegemony is so pervasive that people don't even think about it.


----------



## drothgery (Sep 13, 2007)

reanjr said:
			
		

> And it does NOT take more than 10% extra work to make something cross-platform.  It's relatively trivial if you decide to make the effort.




If you define cross-platform as 'it works', then yeah, it's not a major effort for a simple desktop app or a command line app. But if you want a complex desktop app that looks and acts like a Windows app on Windows, and looks and acts like a Mac app on the Mac, that's a whole different ballgame.


----------



## Patlin (Sep 13, 2007)

Just to be completely unreasonable, I insist that all D&D insider content be usable on my Treo using the Palm OS!


----------



## krissbeth (Sep 13, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> My understanding is that Macs now use Intel processors and can run Windows . . .




Yeah, if you BUY Windows.

Having to buy an additional OS just to run DDI?  Ick.
(I have no other reason why I'd use Windows.  Why bother for something like this?)


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Sep 13, 2007)

hexgrid said:
			
		

> More likely, they knew they weren't up to the challenge of creating software that would be acceptable to the more discerning and sophisticated Mac user base.




I rest my case.


----------



## jaerdaph (Sep 13, 2007)

My laptop is a Mac AND a PC.   

Thank you, Parallels!


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 13, 2007)

SteveC said:
			
		

> I don't want to sound cruel or anything, heck, I was an Amiga user for many years, and appreciate how annoying the second tier status can be. At the same time, no one made you buy a Mac...that was a decision you and others made for yourselves. For all of the great things about the Mac, the problem is software in certain areas, especially in game terms. It's not WotC's fault, it's not the gaming industry's fault...it's an issue of size and numbers, and that's it. If I were working in video editing, complaining that I couldn't get software on the level of *Final Cut Pro* for my PC would be much the same thing.



Yeah, if I were buying a mac, I don't think I'd be saying to myself, "oh boy!  I can do a lot of gaming with this thing!"  I also wouldn't be getting upset when it turned out I couldn't.

Also, Amiga users _represent!_


----------



## BluSponge (Sep 13, 2007)

Well technically Mac users can access all the D&DI goodies through Boot Camp.  Of course, this requires you to have an Intel mac.  You could also go through Parallels and never leave OS X.

That's not an ideal solution for me, but then I'm not really the target audience.

Tom


----------



## reanjr (Sep 13, 2007)

drothgery said:
			
		

> If you define cross-platform as 'it works', then yeah, it's not a major effort for a simple desktop app or a command line app. But if you want a complex desktop app that looks and acts like a Windows app on Windows, and looks and acts like a Mac app on the Mac, that's a whole different ballgame.




Not really, it's a matter of using the right tools and frameworks.  Check out wxWidgets (formerly called wxWindows) for example.  Native GDI, Cocoa, GTK, KDE look and feel.  Most of this app seems to be 3d graphics anyway - OpenGL looks the same on any platform.


----------



## krissbeth (Sep 13, 2007)

jaerdaph said:
			
		

> My laptop is a Mac AND a PC.
> 
> Thank you, Parallels!




But one would still have to buy the "guest operating system," yes?  The same would be true for Boot Camp, I believe.

$80 + $240 for Windows...  Just so a Mac user can get in on the "digital initiative"?

Frowny.

Virtual PC isn't an option either, is it?


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 13, 2007)

Horacio said:
			
		

> They have decided to use the last DirectX iteration that doesn't work in virtual machines or emulators yet



And there's still over 8 months for the mac fans to pester the emulator companies to support it.


----------



## JDJblatherings (Sep 13, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> Even if 90% of Windows machines were work-only vs 50% of Macs (which I do NOT believe is the case, statistically irrelevant anecdotes aside), personal Windows machines would still be a vastly larger market.




A market of millions is still a market of millions.


----------



## green slime (Sep 13, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> Java is a LOUSY solution. It has horrible memory management tools, it's slow as molasses in January, and it has problems with certain browsers.




Why am I not surprised that someone would say this?

Because, as Nifft points out, there is a lot of terrible software out there, that gives this particularly public language a worse-than-deserved reputation.

Well designed, it need not run slow. 

Yes, once a blue moon, you may on occassion run into memory management problems. I can't say it doesn't happen. But neither can I say that it happens more often than errors I see when other programming languages are used. I can't say I've seen any major problems with the browsers I use.

But nothing, nothing can exceed the frustration of the Windows OK button "An Error has Occured: OK"

WTF?!? How informative is that?

Now personally, I could care less for Mac, but it isn't worth the effort (purely from never having ever used one). However, I'm very much in favour of making software as independant of hardware and operating systems as possible. The gains made in terms of portability, ease of use, and creating a common user experience far outweigh any minor hiccups over perceived "memory management" issues.


----------



## green slime (Sep 13, 2007)

reanjr said:
			
		

> These two decisions would have been the *right* decisions, but the hegemony is so pervasive that people don't even think about it.




QFT


----------



## Tanuki (Sep 13, 2007)

Nifft is correct. Writing good multi-platform code is easy, well, not more than 5% harder than writing for a single OS. You just have to design it that way from the beginning. If you isolate things that need to be platform-specific via an abstraction layer, then you have a tiny percent of code that needs to be actually ported. But there are too many badly trained code-slinging monkeys around these days who don't have a clue how to write good code.

(Why not just do it in web-hosted Java? Heck, it’s not like the graphics they have shown us have been anything close to impressive. It doesn’t _need_ to be videogame quality, 60 fps 1200x1000 widescreen. How hard is it to display a 3-d field with some static entities on it? Beyond trivial.)

So, you want a business case for writing platform-neutral code? Sure, here you go, micro-economics 101: for everyone _except the OS vendors_, the operating system is a complement. As the price of a complement goes down, demand for your product goes up. If Windows were 100% free-as-in-beer, anyone could pick it up and install it solely for the purpose of accessing the DI. Demand for the DI would increase.

Since Microsoft will never reduce the cost of Windows, that means the only way for Wizards to reduce the cost of their complement is to expand the options for that complement: making Mac, Linux or Java versions would reduce the cost of the complement to those target consumers using those OS's. Since the price of software development is a fixed cost, the cost of porting to these platforms is negligible compared to the gains, amortized over a sufficient period. As the user-base grows, the network externalities grow at a geometric rate, which is just more good news for business.

Arguments to the effect of “you knew you were going to be marginalized when you chose a non-monopoly OS” miss one important fact. I made my OS choice (Linux) with the full knowledge that my ability to enjoy one of my favorite hobbies would be _entirely unaffected_ by that decision. Now, since D&D is moving to an online, Windows-only model, Wizards has deliberately and maliciously marginalized my ability to consume their product. 

So far, everything I hear about 4th edition makes to salivate in anticipation. Except the DI. The DI is just Wizards little way of letting me know that I’ve gone from valued consumer to marginalized non-entity in their brave new world. Nice.


----------



## Aeolius (Sep 13, 2007)

Patlin said:
			
		

> Just to be completely unreasonable, I insist that all D&D insider content be usable on my Treo using the Palm OS!




and the iPhone


----------



## SteveC (Sep 13, 2007)

reanjr said:
			
		

> I highly doubt what you were doing in school equates with the real world.  Academic computer science is far removed from real world software engineering.  Assuming the application is written in C or C++ (very likely), two decisions would have made their lives easier and would result in a cross platform product.



Well, you'd be right now, but very wrong at the time. I was in school at the time the Java wave was starting up, and many of my classmates ended up getting hired directly out of college to work for some major development houses that declared that Java and cross-platform compatibility was the future of programming. All of those companies have since either gone out of business or switched back to what you talk about below. I did much of my early college programming in C++ with a freeware compiler, and I would have gone back to it in a second rather than develop in Java. *Shudder*.



> Use an intermediary GUI toolkit (wxWindows, GTK, etc.) which runs on top of the underlying platform toolkit (GDI, Cocoa, X).  These toolkits tend to be higher level and _easier_ to use than the native toolkit, saving development time.
> 
> Choose OpenGL rather than DirectX.  OpenGL has wider support than DirectX both platform and hardware (more video cards support OpenGL).  OpenGL is a very mature framework (MS used to push it before DirectX) that is well documented and easy to use.  Whether one or the other is easier is probably up for debate, but there are far more tools available for OpenGL than there are for DirectX.
> 
> These two decisions would have been the *right* decisions, but the hegemony is so pervasive that people don't even think about it.



I would comment that these are some good points, but no one that I know who still programs for a living does anything with OpenGL anymore, although they are not necessarily happy about that fact. The type of people who are likely to pitch something to WotC would almost certainly have pitched it as a standalone product written with DirectX in mind. 

WotC would almost certainly outsource the entire project, and being located in Seattle will tend to color the kind of proposals you get. .NET and DirectX programmers are available in some abundance out there after all. I have a couple friends who work for Microsoft who would do the project pro bono if given the chance, and you can imagine how they would put it together. 

--Steve


----------



## Driddle (Sep 13, 2007)

RFisher said:
			
		

> People always seem quick to dismiss my experience with cross-platform development in favor of their own guesses about it.






			
				wedgeski said:
			
		

> There are also people *with* cross-platform experience (*puts hand up*) who disagree with you.




And then there are some of us who are fundamentally unable to _dismiss_ your experience because we don't know about it to begin with, but who still want to make our own guesses regardless.


----------



## Nifft (Sep 13, 2007)

Tanuki said:
			
		

> If you isolate things that need to be platform-specific via an abstraction layer, then you have a tiny percent of code that needs to be actually ported.



 There's something else, too: by coding to an abstract layer, you are protecting yourself from *future versions of Windows*.

(Have you seen the rage of a VisualBasic programmer when he learns that not only has his chosen language changed incompatibly, but he also has to go back and manually re-write the kludges which were recommended by the maker last year? When the only reason he chose VB was for the "support" and "compatibility" promised by that same manufacturer, and he could have gotten most of the benefit WITHOUT the deliberate knife in the back by instead using an open source tool like Python? It's not pretty.)

Microsoft isn't in the business of making life easy for 3rd party developers. They're in the business of *competing* with 3rd party developers.

The software industry isn't a pretty place. 

Snuggling my safety-penguin, -- N


----------



## Tanuki (Sep 13, 2007)

Patlin said:
			
		

> Just to be completely unreasonable, I insist that all D&D insider content be usable on my Treo using the Palm OS!




Why not? Once the information is in a database anyway, how hard can it be to make a no-frills version for palmtop users? All the hard work is done by the back end anyway, with just the display information is pushed to the client browser. Heck, being able to read DI articles on my Treo while standing in line at the grocery store is something I would definitely pay for.


----------



## TiTi____ (Sep 13, 2007)

CharlesRyan said:
			
		

> So we all know that the mac is a minority OS. WotC says that their market research indicates that only a small minority of their gamers use macs. If their data matches other data sources, the size of that minority is less than 10% of home computer users.
> 
> Great. DDI can be a success with only 90% of the market.
> 
> ...





If the developers are willing, they'd use Java as their development language. In that case, OS/Platform is of no importance (unless they use OS/platform specific libraries/extensions, but that would be stupid).


----------



## WizarDru (Sep 13, 2007)

JDJblatherings said:
			
		

> A market of millions is still a market of millions.




At last estimate, there were roughly some 3 million active players of D&D in the world, give or take (as opposed to World of Warcraft's active 9 million accounts).  Even if we assume that every one of those active players wants DDI and that 10% of them are Mac users (two fairly big assumptions), we are nowhere near a market of millions.

The fact of the matter is that while the mac market isn't non-existent or insignificant, WotC clearly feels the rate of return is not worth the effort, at least for now.

D&D players: niche
D&D players who want DDI: sub-niche
D&D players who want DDI and have a mac: sub-sub-niche


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Sep 13, 2007)

> Software projects are plagued by disproportionate expenses and failures. I'm not saying it's easy to do good software -- it's not. It takes experience and hard work, good planning and agility when things don't go as planned. My point is that compared to writing good software, writing good cross-platform software isn't much harder.




Heh. And I say that makes is all academic.  If this stuff is a killer app at version 1.0, it will be the *first * VT software that is.  And that's assuming that it is, if not good software, at least solid, decent software.  (For example, the few bugs get fixed in updates, quickly, and none of them are the kind that let you know that there is no way full testing was done.)

The notes about using agile software development gives me greater hope for this project.  But I still expect it to meet my standards around version 2.*, and not before.


----------



## green slime (Sep 13, 2007)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> At last estimate, there were roughly some 3 million active players of D&D in the world, give or take (as opposed to World of Warcraft's active 9 million accounts).  Even if we assume that every one of those active players wants DDI and that 10% of them are Mac users (two fairly big assumptions), we are nowhere near a market of millions.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that while the mac market isn't non-existent or insignificant, WotC clearly feels the rate of return is not worth the effort, at least for now.
> 
> ...




Except in the year 2007 it needn't be an "either/or" situation, unless you specifically set yourself up for that.

Somehow, somewhere, for whatever godforsaken reason, someone made the decision that it is better to limit the software to a subset.

Because they're not just excluding Macs, but Linux users as well. (Yeah, yeah, I can dual boot or emulate. I'd rather just stay away from Bill and his greedy fingers)


----------



## Mercule (Sep 13, 2007)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> The geographically distributed group still has the fun time of excluding one or more of its possible members.
> 
> The OP is right.  Because DDI must be used in groups, a significant number of groups will always be looking for alternatives to DDI - one that doesn't make them exclude some of their friends.  I really think it's a bad business decision.




You make it sound like they have to kick him out of an existing group.  Not so much, since the group couldn't exist w/o the VTT (okay, they could do PBEM or something, but we're assuming a group that hasn't found a solution, yet).

A better analogy (and one within my RL experience) would be someone who has kids.  They may find themselves without the time to game.  Their group isn't kicking them out, their own choices are excluding them.  In my case, I still game because the kids can play in the other room, but I miss out on a lot of movies, concerts, etc. that my non-parent friends go to.  They aren't excluding me.  They're taking advantage of an opportunity that isn't available to me.

You could also take the example of the guy with a nice-paying job, but long hours.  No time for gaming, but he has some other perks (I'm assuming Macs come with perks other than missing out on software).  He could find a different job (i.e. change to PC), but that's a choice he has to weigh.  If he doesn't make the move, his friends aren't excluding him, he's made a priority call.

The VTT isn't the only way to game.  It isn't even the only way to game online.  It isn't even the only way to have a virtual table-top online, IIRC.  It's just the offerring from WotC in that field.  No one is going to come to your house and beat you or hit your IP with as DoS if you use one of the other options or decline to use any option at all.

It's a tool.  Something over and above anything ever offered by WotC before.  It's existence denies you nothing.  It does, however, offer another option to the majority of people.  Get over it.

They could have used Java, thus ensuring that it ran poorly on all platforms.


----------



## Zurai (Sep 13, 2007)

green slime said:
			
		

> Yes, once a blue moon, you may on occassion run into memory management problems. I can't say it doesn't happen. But neither can I say that it happens more often than errors I see when other programming languages are used. I can't say I've seen any major problems with the browsers I use.
> 
> But nothing, nothing can exceed the frustration of the Windows OK button "An Error has Occured: OK"
> 
> WTF?!? How informative is that?





I'm not talking about the user end. Neither windows nor java apps should ever have memory management problems on the user end.

In java, the programmer literally has no control over when or how memory is cleaned up. None whatsoever. With windows (or mac, for that matter), you have much more control; full control for windows, I'm not sure the extent of it for mac. That's what I was referring to.

Java is a lousy solution.


----------



## jaerdaph (Sep 13, 2007)

krissbeth said:
			
		

> But one would still have to buy the "guest operating system," yes?  The same would be true for Boot Camp, I believe.
> 
> $80 + $240 for Windows...  Just so a Mac user can get in on the "digital initiative"?




Yes, but I need to have access to both operating systems for the work I do. And there's a lot of people out there in the same boat I am, so they run both on their machines anyway. So saying that WotC's decision shuts out all 20 million Mac users is ridiculous. Ideally, they would have made their tools available to everyone on every platform, but reality was against them. For example, there is a shortage of Java programmers out there - Java programmers made big bucks this year because of it. If WotC had picked Java, they might not be able to afford to keep a programmer on staff, if they could find one at all. Big business is snatching up the Java programmers now for big bucks, and I'm not sure an RPG company could compete, even WotC. Their parent company Hasbro would never allow that for a division that size.


----------



## Imp (Sep 13, 2007)

They could have either made it web-based, and made us Mac, Linux, etc. users happy, or had somebody real put it together, and made me sad.  (DDI, brought to you by Bioware!  PC only! : cries : )  As is it's probably totally missable.  Eh.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Sep 13, 2007)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Even if we assume that every one of those active players wants DDI and that 10% of them are Mac users (two fairly big assumptions), we are nowhere near a market of millions.




That's the problem right there. The percentage of Mac users that play D&D is a lot higher then Mac's current market share.

Just looked at our site statistics and while we get nowhere near the traffic that EN World or WotC would get (we average about 5,000 visits a month), we break down like this:

Windows 70.74%
Mac 26.04%
Linux 2.73%
Undetermined .49%

1 out of every 4 people is a far cry from the percentages a lot of people are claiming and based on these numbers, Charles argument certainly has a lot of resonance.


----------



## jaerdaph (Sep 13, 2007)

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> That's the problem right there. The percentage of Mac users that play D&D is a lot higher then Mac's current market share.




That doesn't really surprise me. Mac users tend to be a very creative group of people, and as such it isn't surprising that they would be attracted to RPGs. Not to say that Windows users aren't attracted to the game for the same reason though. But in the end, it's all about market share, be it 90% vs. 10% or 75% vs. 25%, and if the cost of development is worth it or not.


----------



## Oldtimer (Sep 13, 2007)

Fobok said:
			
		

> Are you sure? DirectX 10 is the latest and it only works on Windows Vista. I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere that DDI would be Vista-only.



It's written to DirectX9. Paralells only do DX8 at this time. I suppose the poster didn't know about DX10.


----------



## JDJblatherings (Sep 13, 2007)

heck out of 55 respondents to "which OS do you use"  here on enworld 23 use MAC OS X That's what...41%?


----------



## Barastrondo (Sep 13, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Yeah, if I were buying a mac, I don't think I'd be saying to myself, "oh boy!  I can do a lot of gaming with this thing!"  I also wouldn't be getting upset when it turned out I couldn't.[/i]




That's where I am. I have a Mac. I use my computer for both work and leisure. I do have games for it, mostly Blizzard and Popcap, and that's enough. Didn't expect any more than that.

I'm not upset by the fact that there's no Mac support. It just answered the "Would running D&D games online for friends be something I'd be interested in trying?" question for me, nothing more.


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 13, 2007)

JDJblatherings said:
			
		

> That's what...41%?



That would be nothing close to scientific.  The poll has so many variables in it that it can't be taken as anything but "for entertainment purposes."

Who is the target of the poll?  EnWorld users, who browse the computer forum, who vote on polls, who are drawn to polls about their choice of operating systems.



			
				JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> That's the problem right there. The percentage of Mac users that play D&D is a lot higher then Mac's current market share.




Interesting.  I saw reports that said the opposite (at least as far as the system they use for gaming preparation).  I wish I could remember where I saw that.


----------



## hexgrid (Sep 13, 2007)

jaerdaph said:
			
		

> But in the end, it's all about market share, be it 90% vs. 10% or 75% vs. 25%, and if the cost of development is worth it or not.




Really, I think it's more about what platforms the developers/project leaders are familiar with than it is about market share. If WoTC was crammed full of Mac users, I'd bet we'd be getting a cross platform version pretty quickly, market share be damned.


----------



## WizarDru (Sep 13, 2007)

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> That's the problem right there. The percentage of Mac users that play D&D is a lot higher then Mac's current market share.




I'm not seeing where you're getting this data from...are you extrapolating from your website and applying it to the entirety of the D&D market?  Considering we don't even have hard numbers on how many active D&D players are in the market right now, I don't know that I'm willing to believe that we can determine something like that they have a higher population of Mac users than the general public.

Enworld is one of the most succesful websites dedicated to D&D, with more than 35,000 unique visitors per day, and I'm not sure that I'd trust their numbers, either.  Because if there are 3 million active players, then a LOT of them aren't visiting ENworld. WotC hasn't released their web visitor and browser type stats...but it's possible they're looking at the same statistics and drawing their own conclusions, and with their sample size, I think they'd have a relatively more accurate picture if they're using that metric and not external research (which I suspect is at least a component).


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 13, 2007)

Tanuki said:
			
		

> Nifft is correct. Writing good multi-platform code is easy, well, not more than 5% harder than writing for a single OS. You just have to design it that way from the beginning. If you isolate things that need to be platform-specific via an abstraction layer, then you have a tiny percent of code that needs to be actually ported. But there are too many badly trained code-slinging monkeys around these days who don't have a clue how to write good code.
> 
> (Why not just do it in web-hosted Java? Heck, it’s not like the graphics they have shown us have been anything close to impressive. It doesn’t _need_ to be videogame quality, 60 fps 1200x1000 widescreen. How hard is it to display a 3-d field with some static entities on it? Beyond trivial.)
> 
> ...



Maliciously? 



Spoiler



AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH! I hate this kind of message board discussion tactic. Grrr. Must.Calm.Down.


----------



## WizarDru (Sep 13, 2007)

JDJblatherings said:
			
		

> heck out of 55 respondents to "which OS do you use"  here on enworld 23 use MAC OS X That's what...41%?




Glyfair already pointed out how self-selecting the poll itself is...and if you look, there are currently 61 respondents but 89 answers.  Which is fine, but that only shows that of the people who decided to answer the poll, some of them use multiple OSes at home.  It doesn't even indicate that they use it for browsing ENworld.  I have a test Linux box at home, for example, but it doesn't get used from browsing the web.


----------



## Nifft (Sep 13, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Maliciously?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 Looked like humor to me.

And I'm not just saying that because Tanuki 



Spoiler



agrees with me and thus


 is dead sexy.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Kunimatyu (Sep 13, 2007)

I"m another one of those Mac laptop users(and the DM for my group), so that's soured me a lot on the DI. I don't really care about playing most PC games, but losing access to D&D functionality is an annoyance.

My biggest concern, though, is that WotC is actually developing for DX10, which would require Vista. Emulating XP I could probably handle, but Vista's specs are so nasty I'm not sure what the point would be.


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 13, 2007)

Kunimatyu said:
			
		

> My biggest concern, though, is that WotC is actually developing for DX10, which would require Vista.



As quoted on the D&D Insider info thread, they are developing for DirectX 9.

Edit: Or maybe I missed quoting that tidbit on the thread.

Oh well.  Yes, Didier stated DirectX 9.


----------



## WizarDru (Sep 13, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> Java is a lousy solution.




I don't know if it's lousy or not, but I will say that I have yet to see a Java application that was not slow, a memory hog and sporting an ugly interface.  I don't need the Crysis enging, but if WotC is going to succeed, I need something resembling a punchy interface.  While Java probably _can_ support these things, I posit that it must not be easy to do so.  I have seen games and commercial applications running under Java and been left unimpressed by both.

Heck, even Sun admits that Java and the JRE have a ways to go before they really are consumer-ready.  If WotC can deliver the performance I expect...no, _demand_ for the DI, then great.  If not, then count me out.  I already have enough under-performing electronic D&D tools.  

In all honesty, I expect the 4e rules to be great and the DI to fall flat on it's face (both based on past performance).  But I'd like to be wrong on the latter.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 13, 2007)

I know what they should have done: They should have built the software with Silverlight, based on WPF/.NET 3.0 technology. Unlike "real" .NET, it exists also on Mac OS X. 
But wait, that wasn't out 6 months ago...


Cross Platform development in the area of graphic intensive application is not easy. It requires extra a lot of extra work. Sure, you can use abstraction layers to ensure to "hide" the complexities of the graphics stuff from the rest of the application. But this doesn't mean that you don't have to to do the graphic stuff twice. 

At my corporation, we are developing with C++ and QT, and we are also developing with .NET 3.0

The C++ QT application is currently working on Windows only. Overhauling it for Mac and Linux would be possible, but this requires a lot of work, for which we simply do not have the manpower. Maybe the guys doing the software will get around doing it in some time. But maybe not.

The .NET application is Windows only, since there are no implementations for .NET 3 for Linux or Mac yet. I hope this will improve due to projects like Mono and Olive, and also due to Silverlight. But honestly, after developing with .NET I will never want to go back. Maybe I'll have to, but I don't like to.



The realities of software development mean that there is a "design space" consisting of these variables: 
1) Time 
2) Money
3) Features you want.
if you decrease the time available for a project and want the same features, the money you require will go up.
If you decrease the money available for a project, it takes either longer or you will have to sacrifice some features.
If you want more features, the money will cost more or require more time.

Software Development fails these days (frighteningly often) because these rules are either ignored or certain estimates are simply wrong (sometimes intently to get the job, sometimes because people just don't know what they got into).

WotC knows that D&D 4th edition will hit the street on May 2008. Development started at some point before. WotC has probably only a certain budget reserved for the software.
So, to get the software in the time available and for the money required, it want probably this way:
"We need an application that will allow a graphic representation of a game table and a character, and allows the user to roll dice. We need it till May 2008 and it may cost no more than 900,000 $*"
Company A says: "Damn, we had to begin from the start. We'll get it to May 2008, but this will require our full staff and we might have to hire some external help. I guess that will cost 1,200,000"!
Company B says: "We have a 3D Engine half finished, so this will cut some time. But it only works on Windows. Oh, and it costs what you're willing to pay, and we will get it out in time". 
Market Research: "Windows? Oh, that's pretty common. Would be better if it was universally used, but we figure this will make only 100,000 $ difference more per year"
WotC: "900,000 + 100,000 = 1,000,000. 1,000,000 < 1,200,000. So, for the first year, it will be cheaper than Company A? Company B, you got the job!"

*) all numbers made up with no knowing how the actual numbers would look like.

---

All that said: I am a Windows and a Mac user. I love my new MacBook Pro, but there is really little software I need that runs on it. The MacBook is my "writing & watching movies" computer these days, which probably make it a waste of my money. But I like it anyway, and I would love it more would run on it. 
I even bought and installed Windows Vista for it, though i am not using that too often. My old machine still runs the games I have fine...

oh, and as a general disclaimer: I always had a tendency for Microsoft OS (never got into Linux/Unix, despite having studied computer sciences and being a software developer), and since I am developing with .NET at my job, I became a kind of Microsoft "fanboy". So take everything I say with this in mind.  (Even though I must admit that there are certain features of Windows that could be a lot better. But Microsoft can build good OS - unfortunately, these are only research prototypes incompatible with everything we have these days.  )


----------



## Tanuki (Sep 13, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Maliciously?
> 
> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH! I hate this kind of message board discussion tactic. Grrr. Must.Calm.Down.




So, no counter argument to any of my other points, based on sound economic theory and 10 years experience writing cross-platform apps, then? Just nitpicking one word? I hate that kind of message board discussion tactic.


----------



## Tanuki (Sep 13, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> The C++ QT application is currently working on Windows only.




That's weird. We use C++ and QT specifically because it does cross platform so well. Are you sure it's the QT bit making it hard to do the cross platform?


----------



## Stormtalon (Sep 13, 2007)

CleverName said:
			
		

> Actually, I stumbled upon this yesterday: CodeWeavers
> 
> They have a directx engine built in and it does NOT require you to run Windows at all -- or more importantly to buy windows, at all.
> 
> Still, we are talking about spending ~$60 to run DDI or other windows apps, but it may be a workaround until WotC ports the software.




Oh, nice.  There's what I'd consider to be an acceptable option to tide over the wait for a real port.  It's sorta like a user-end version of Cider, I'd hazard.

Something to keep in mind once I get myself a iMac early next year.  =)


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 13, 2007)

JDJblatherings said:
			
		

> heck out of 55 respondents to "which OS do you use"  here on enworld 23 use MAC OS X That's what...41%?



Since someone mentioned that the poll was in the Computer forum, I'm just going to hazard a guess that since computer software is harder to come by for macs than for Windows, it's likely that there are more mac people in that forum than elsewhere, since part of the reason they're there is to locate mac software.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Sep 13, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Since someone mentioned that the poll was in the Computer forum




Where's that poll? Is it still open? I'd like to vote.


----------



## kenmarable (Sep 13, 2007)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Enworld is one of the most succesful websites dedicated to D&D, with more than 35,000 unique visitors per day, and I'm not sure that I'd trust their numbers, either.  Because if there are 3 million active players, then a LOT of them aren't visiting ENworld. WotC hasn't released their web visitor and browser type stats...but it's possible they're looking at the same statistics and drawing their own conclusions, and with their sample size, I think they'd have a relatively more accurate picture if they're using that metric and not external research (which I suspect is at least a component).



Of course even that isn't clear since the web statistics measures the operating system of the computers visited the web site, which may or may not match up with the computers people would use for gaming. Personally, I browse the sites 95% of the time from work on my Windows PC (shhh, don't tell my boss). At home I have a Mac laptop and use that for gaming (just happen to not do as much web browsing at home).

Their web statistics are probably a somewhat decent picture, but still isn't perfectly accurate. Market research (which WotC does regularly do) is far more accurate and probably what they use. As for the DirectX decision, as I understand it, that decision was made years ago, and they are re-purposing and expanding on existing code originally built when the market might have been different. So current statistics, whatever the source, are probably moot.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Sep 13, 2007)

The poll was also linked from this thread, which from the title is likely to attract a higher proportion of Mac users.  

Argue the statistics all you want, the simple fact is more people drive Windows machines than those of us with Macs or Linux.  In the end WotC is betting that there will be enough Windows users out there to make the D&D Insider profitable.  How many more subscribers they might gain from a cross-platform application, and what the return on investment would be on that can never be answered unless WotC does it and examines the data.  

I will probably still purchase the 4e books when the come out.  As for D&D Insider, I haven't subscribed to Dragon since 1988, and never subscribed to Dungeon, and yet I still enjoyed my D&D games.  I thought D&D Insider might draw me in with the virtual game table, but if I can't use it without additional computer investment, the I probably won't bother with it at all.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Sep 13, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> Interesting. I saw reports that said the opposite (at least as far as the system they use for gaming preparation). I wish I could remember where I saw that.




Being a publisher and knowing so many people in the community that are publishers, my view of this might be entirely skewed to Mac because most publishers use Macs. I dunno. If you saw something different, I'd like to see it...



			
				WizarDru said:
			
		

> I'm not seeing where you're getting this data from...are you extrapolating from your website and applying it to the entirety of the D&D market?




Its extrapolated from my website yes. While it certainly isn't close to perfect by any means, I'm not suggesting that this pertains to the whole D&D market.

Honestly, I'm not really concerned too much with people that are playing D&D right now and not going to EN World or other websites for D&D. I work with a ton of people at Network Solutions that don't even know about EN World or Wizards.com.

I feel that it would be pretty insane to assume that when 4e hits the whole D&D market should be taken into consideration for the Digital Initiative. I think the segment of the market that WotC should be concerned with is the segment that is online now. IMO, those will be the people that will first buy into the Digital Initiative. That's what I'm basing this all off of.


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 13, 2007)

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> I think the segment of the market that WotC should be concerned with is the segment that is online now.



The part of the market that games regularly online now probably shouldn't be WotC's primary concern.  They likely already have bought into one of the other virtual tabletops out there and will have a harder time pulling them to D&D Insider, at least for the gaming tools.

What they probably should be targeting are the casual internet users, or the ones who use it mostly for non-gaming.  Catch their interest by directing their attention to the concept of "getting the old group together."  

Of course, I don't think that argues for or against Macs.


----------



## Tanuki (Sep 13, 2007)

Is it just the VT content that will be Windows only, or will it be all DI content?


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 13, 2007)

Tanuki said:
			
		

> Is it just the VT content that will be Windows only, or will it be all DI content?




From the D&D Insider thread:



> *Q: Which D&D Insider elements require Direct X?*
> 
> Answer
> 
> ...




Everything else should be either web based, PDF based or something similiar (_Dungeon_, _Dragon_).


----------



## WayneLigon (Sep 13, 2007)

CharlesRyan said:
			
		

> That means that somewhere around 50% of D&D game groups include at least one mac user.




I know around about nine groups. None of them has a person who uses a Mac. I've _seen _ a Mac once that was not in a store. I don't know anyone at all who owns one or works on one, so WOTC probably has the right of it.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Sep 13, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> The part of the market that games regularly online now probably shouldn't be WotC's primary concern.  They likely already have bought into one of the other virtual tabletops out there and will have a harder time pulling them to D&D Insider, at least for the gaming tools.
> 
> What they probably should be targeting are the casual internet users, or the ones who use it mostly for non-gaming.  Catch their interest by directing their attention to the concept of "getting the old group together."
> 
> Of course, I don't think that argues for or against Macs.



 This has the potential for making the argument for Macs a little stronger.  Many people who choose Macs do so because they want simplicity with functionality.  The Virtual Game Table on D&D Insider seems to be indicating it would be a package with all the tools needed to play your game online.  That might be just about the perfect thing to appeal to Mac users who aren't really techies (such as myself to some degree and my wife absolutely).


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Sep 13, 2007)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> I've _seen _ a Mac once that was not in a store.




You live in the South.(Alabama according to your info.)  The South is generally conservative politically.  Macs are hippy-liberal machines in stereotype.  Your experience is important to highlight the clumpiness of OS's but not to defuse the fact that Macs are significant.


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 13, 2007)

Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> That might be just about the perfect thing to appeal to Mac users who aren't really techies (such as myself to some degree and my wife absolutely).



And it wouldn't appeal to Windows users who aren't techies?  (I'll discount the minute number of Linux users who aren't techies).


----------



## JVisgaitis (Sep 13, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> What they probably should be targeting are the casual internet users, or the ones who use it mostly for non-gaming.  Catch their interest by directing their attention to the concept of "getting the old group together."




You might be right, but using that logic we're back to Charles original post:

_Great. DDI can be a success with only 90% of the market.

But for DDI to work (or, at least, for the online tabletop to work), and entire group needs to access DDI. WotC is now building the game around the typical group of 6.

That means that somewhere around 50% of D&D game groups include at least one mac user._


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Sep 13, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> And it wouldn't appeal to Windows users who aren't techies?  (I'll discount the minute number of Linux users who aren't techies).



 I never said that, but in my experience in a PC household there is often at least one person who is pretty tech savvy and is willing to set things up for non-techies in the house.  In Mac households it much more likely that nobody is.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Sep 13, 2007)

Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> I never said that, but in my experience in a PC household there is often at least one person who is pretty tech savvy and is willing to set things up for non-techies in the house.  In Mac households it much more likely that nobody is.




I'm the techie in my household and I use a Mac and work at Network Solutions in Tech Support. A few other people I work with are just like me. This is just so subjective there is no way to back it up.


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 13, 2007)

Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> I never said that, but in my experience in a PC household there is often at least one person who is pretty tech savvy and is willing to set things up for non-techies in the house.  In Mac households it much more likely that nobody is.




My experience is different.  I know a lot of households that were dragged into the computer age by necessity rather than by desire. All of them have Windows based computers.


----------



## wedgeski (Sep 13, 2007)

reanjr said:
			
		

> These two decisions would have been the *right* decisions, but the hegemony is so pervasive that people don't even think about it.



Between this and the righteous fury of the 'MicroEc-101' poster (I'd love to see the project case made at Wizards using that kind of thinking), these threads don't half make me laugh. There are plain, sensible business reasons for *not* engaging in cross-platform dev that have everything to do with risk aversion and nothing whatsoever to do with Mac vs. PC ideologies or the Wintel 'hegemony'.

Theory is pointless. At the end of the day, these guys are spending millions of dollars on the DI and they have to measure the risk and relative expense of cross-platform dev against the likely increase in revenue that risk will attract. Aside from the OP's point, which is a good one, such decisions are normally very easy, and they don't come down on the side of Mac or Linux users. Maybe Wizards haven't considered all of the facts. Only time will tell.


----------



## Baron Opal (Sep 13, 2007)

CharlesRyan said:
			
		

> Can DDI be a success with only 50% of the market? Or is WotC expecting these groups to say sayonara to their mac-using buddies?
> 
> Either way, for a company that's normally very good at recognizing the gaming group--not the gaming individual--as the key unit, I think they've made a fairly serious miscalculation.




You're nuts. If *half* of the people who buy a Player's Handbook become members of DDI WotC will be *ecstatic!*


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 13, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> It's not that hard to write *good* software. Why don't more developers do that?




Ignoring the fact that I think it _is_ difficult to write good software, my answer to this is that corporate culture discourages good software from being written when mediocre code will suffice and is generally accepted by users.

Based on my experience, the virtual gaming table is most likely built on top of an old prototype hastily thrown together using DirectX that was never even meant to see use. 



			
				Zurai said:
			
		

> In java, the programmer literally has no control over when or how memory is cleaned up. None whatsoever. With windows (or mac, for that matter), you have much more control; full control for windows, I'm not sure the extent of it for mac. That's what I was referring to.




The GC is here to stay and isn't going away. It's the revolution. Memory management being abstracted away makes writing code much more productive and less buggy. That's why .NET uses GC.


----------



## Oldtimer (Sep 13, 2007)

Kunimatyu said:
			
		

> My biggest concern, though, is that WotC is actually developing for DX10, which would require Vista.



Again, they are not. It's DX9.


----------



## Tanuki (Sep 13, 2007)

wedgeski said:
			
		

> the *righteous fury* of the 'MicroEc-101' poster (I'd love to see the project case made at Wizards using that kind of thinking),




I made a series of rational, not furious, and well-reasoned points. I have yet to see a counter-argument to the economic argument besides the "Wizards knows what they are doing." non-argument, or to the other points I made, besides Mustrum Ridcully's fine response regarding the difficulties of porting. Did you even understand my economics argument? Or are you content with your ad hominem?


----------



## CleverName (Sep 13, 2007)

Oh, what the heck: 

Your favorite OS sucks.



If you can't beat 'em....


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Sep 13, 2007)

> It's not that hard to write good software. Why don't more developers do that?




Because often developers are working on a project that is not sufficiently funded to have good software.  Specifically, the customer wants a bunch of stuff that he didn't pay for, he wants to change his mind at the last minute, and he doesn't want to pay for any overhead.  But he still wants his product delivered on time.    

The DI could be worse.  It could be that WotC and the software contractors were using government bid procedures and processes, and had the Federal audit folks looking over their shoulders the whole time, while they developed something against a spec designed by a bunch of software professors that have never worked in the real world. It would definitely be cross-platform, but the final spec would clear the final committee about the time 5E hit the shelves.


----------



## Tanuki (Sep 13, 2007)

CleverName said:
			
		

> Oh, what the heck:
> 
> Your favorite OS sucks.
> 
> ...




QFT!!!!


----------



## gizmo33 (Sep 13, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> The GC is here to stay and isn't going away. It's the revolution. Memory management being abstracted away makes writing code much more productive and less buggy. That's why .NET uses GC.




Yea, Java itself is just a programming language and the problems that browsers have with applets and such is outside of the scope of what a language is really responsible for.  The problem that I see is that there essentially is very little in the way of standards that have developed for applications.  The "write-once run anywhere" thing runs into a problem when a certain OS/browser just doesn't implement things according to what the standards say it should (when the standards even exist) - and now you've invested $$ into developing a solution and your response is going to be to point the finger at a particular OS/browser manufacturer and say "it's their fault"?  That's not going to get you your $$$ back.  IME cross-platform development is risky in that all of the problems that you encounter will not be of your own making as you are often testing a vendors implementation of a standard.

Also, platforms often have features unique to themselves.  Writing cross platform means taking a lowest-common-denominator approach to features.  It's also hard for platform-generic code to make efficient use of platform-specific optimization, which I think would be an issue in something like a Java to Direct X bridge.

Although it's a shame that some software isn't written for the Mac, I can understand why it happens.


----------



## Nifft (Sep 13, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Ignoring the fact that I think it _is_ difficult to write good software, my answer to this is that corporate culture discourages good software from being written when mediocre code will suffice and is generally accepted by users.



 Please keep in mind I was answering someone else -- "why don't most developers do cross-platform coding if it's so easy?"

It is indeed *not* easy to write good software. But many of the things that you do in order go get good software are also things that enable you to relatively easily make your code cross-platform.

And once your test suite is running cross-platform, you'll find bugs faster.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Nifft (Sep 13, 2007)

CleverName said:
			
		

> Your favorite OS sucks.



 Well duh. It's made of software. 

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Zurai (Sep 14, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> The GC is here to stay and isn't going away. It's the revolution. Memory management being abstracted away makes writing code much more productive and less buggy. That's why .NET uses GC.




Yes... and .NET has tools for interfacing with the garbage collector. Java does not. That was my point.


----------



## Ulorian - Agent of Chaos (Sep 14, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> Java is a LOUSY solution. It has horrible memory management tools, it's slow as molasses in January, and it has problems with certain browsers.



A very uninformed opinion. I find that those who make comments like this are not software developers, or if they are, are junior and have zero experience with the language. Where does this sort of misinformation come from? The first edition of Java (1996) suffered from these problems. Java is currently in its sixth version (with the seventh on its way). If you're not an authority on something, please don't speak as if you are.


----------



## Ulorian - Agent of Chaos (Sep 14, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> Yes... and .NET has tools for interfacing with the garbage collector. Java does not. That was my point.



You mean like this?

      Runtime r = Runtime.getRuntime();

      r.gc();

Java does allow you to access the garbage collector, but with modern garbage collection algorithms, it's virtually unnecessary to do so.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Sep 14, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Well duh. It's made of software.
> 
> Cheers, -- N




My computer runs on a hardware-OS. I built it myself.


----------



## blargney the second (Sep 14, 2007)

It'd be cool to see the DDI game table go open source.  It seems appropriate.
-blarg


----------



## wedgeski (Sep 14, 2007)

Tanuki said:
			
		

> Did you even understand my economics argument? Or are you content with your ad hominem?



Yes, I understood it. If I thought you'd believe me, I'd tell you about my academic background to prove it. But what has become clear, in the intervening years of being a full-time software engineer, is that the lessons I internalized during my studies have zero -- if not less than zero -- impact on the day-to-day exigencies of actually *running* a software department.

The point I want to make, and I apologize for resorting to the rhetoric I did in my previous post, is that markets are unique. Corporations are unique. Pressures are unique. Micro-economic theory simply collapses under the weight of factors introduced by human decision-making, and it's a very unconvincing way to make your case.

At least to me. And IME, anyone I have ever had to answer to.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 14, 2007)

Tanuki said:
			
		

> That's weird. We use C++ and QT specifically because it does cross platform so well. Are you sure it's the QT bit making it hard to do the cross platform?



No, no, not at all. Sorry if I made the impression. I think one of the major reasons is that some of the Controls used for file browsing is based on ActiveX controls. (Don't ask me why they are using ActiveX, I am not developing that application. I guess there were good reasons to do it when they began, and they simply don't have the time to build their own file system viewers...)


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 14, 2007)

Tanuki said:
			
		

> So, no counter argument to any of my other points, based on sound economic theory and 10 years experience writing cross-platform apps, then? Just nitpicking one word? I hate that kind of message board discussion tactic.



Sorry. You might not have deserved it. But the post was the x-th post that used a unfounded attack like this, and I couldn't take it any longer and needed a small vent... But I tried to keep my outbreak out of the main discussion because the topic itself is valid. 

And no, no further counters except the ones I gave shortly after that post... 
More might come...


----------



## RFisher (Sep 14, 2007)

wedgeski said:
			
		

> There are also people *with* cross-platform experience (*puts hand up*) who disagree with you.




Yeah. & no doubt I'd learn something from discussing the topic with you. But I'm doing my best to avoid such a discussion in public forums. Heck, I probably shouldn't have even posted in this thread. I probably shouldn't even be writing this post...



			
				WizarDru said:
			
		

> I mean, mac users have been the red-headed stepchildren for years, in this respect.  Just ask folks using Tivo Desktop, Microsoft products or the vast majority of game software.




My dad stuck with Apple even during the years that I couldn't. (Plus, during that time, I decided Playstation was for games, computer wasn't--with some minor exceptions.) Yet he has never had a lack of Mac games. In fact, we just bought him another one for his birthday.

Once you separate the crap (however you define it) out of the vast majority of game software, you find that a lot of what remains is Mac compatible.

& Microsoft Office has always been available for the Mac. Microsoft clearly felt it when they allowed Office for the Mac to stagnate.



			
				Nifft said:
			
		

> Though I do grant you it may be harder to find someone with experience doing cross-platform design, I don't think it's always a good trade off to hire someone cheaper and *less experienced* instead.




A moot point. A decent programmer will get up to speed on cross-platform development faster than a lousy programmer will produce crappy code that works.



			
				Driddle said:
			
		

> And then there are some of us who are fundamentally unable to _dismiss_ your experience because we don't know about it to begin with, but who still want to make our own guesses regardless.




OK, here's the brief version: I worked for a three man company (only two of us were programmers) that produced shrinkwrapped consumer software that sold well. We supported Mac 68K, Mac PowerPC, Windows 3.11, Windows 95, & Windows NT. (& if you think supporting different versions of Windows isn't cross-platform development, you haven't dealt with a complex product that really tries to fit each platform.) When I started, none of us had Windows programming experience, yet we had our first product on the shelf in 6 months.

I could go on, but that's the job that may be most analogous to the topic at hand.

So, arguments that cross-platform development is too expensive or takes too many resources or results in lowest-common-denominator software, &c.; doesn't hold water with me. Rather, I've seen that the benefits of cross-platform development far outweigh any additional cost.

Where cross-platform development gets expensive is when you postpone it.

So, why doesn't everybody do it? Well, there certainly are situations when cross-platform development doesn't make sense, but that doesn't account for everybody. It is, IMHO, because the decisions are too often make on instinct or "conventional wisdom". I hate to say it, but I believe a lot of my success in this industry is because I refuse to accept the conventional wisdom until I've convinced myself it is right & applicable to my specific situation, not because I have superior coding fu. & I've been lucky to work for some people who respected my experience, research, & opinions.


----------



## Tanuki (Sep 14, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Sorry. You might not have deserved it.




Oh, I may have done. Rereading my post, it _is_ overly phlegmatic. I have gone back and used "strike out" to remove the phrases that made me come off as more bull-headed than I originally intended. My apologies.


----------



## JDJblatherings (Sep 14, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Since someone mentioned that the poll was in the Computer forum, I'm just going to hazard a guess that since computer software is harder to come by for macs than for Windows, it's likely that there are more mac people in that forum than elsewhere, since part of the reason they're there is to locate mac software.




I don't have any problem finding Mac software.  apple has it for sale right ontheir website and there are several other very easy to locate websites for mac software also. There are far less second rate NWN,doom and halo knock-offs available however.

Of course this morning i was playing a DOS game on my Mac which hasn't worked on a Winodows based machine for a couple of years now.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Sep 14, 2007)

How come every time this comes up it turns into a debate on who knows what about the creation of cross compatible software? We also get the whole I can get what I want on my Mac and have people starting with the whole OS debate. Sheesh! Not trying to thread crap, but this just bugs me.


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Sep 14, 2007)

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> That's the problem right there. The percentage of Mac users that play D&D is a lot higher then Mac's current market share.
> 
> Just looked at our site statistics and while we get nowhere near the traffic that EN World or WotC would get (we average about 5,000 visits a month), we break down like this:
> 
> ...





This poll does not take into account how many people run more than one OS. How many Mac users also own a PC?


----------



## kenmarable (Sep 14, 2007)

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> This poll does not take into account how many people run more than one OS. How many Mac users also own a PC?



3

Only one is a gamer, but nobody likes him anyway.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 14, 2007)

JDJblatherings said:
			
		

> I don't have any problem finding Mac software.  apple has it for sale right ontheir website and there are several other very easy to locate websites for mac software also. There are far less second rate NWN,doom and halo knock-offs available however.



I mean mac-based games and gaming tools.  Which is why they are looking in the ENWorld computer forums rather than anywhere else...it being a site frequented by gamers who could point people toward software like CrystalBall, a mac application I first saw mention of in those very forums.


----------



## HatWearingFool (Sep 14, 2007)

A couple of things...

I work as a programmer for a Post Secondary Education Institute in Canada. And I can tell you that around here Mac sales among students are literally sky-rocketing. Our institution and others that we keep in touch with are all in the same boat. Our services for students are now being re-written to work with multiple platforms due to increasing demand from our customers. Although many services have been moved to the web using standards in the last 5 years so this isn't that bad of a situation for us. 

So while many older people might not know someone one with a mac let me assure you many University or College goers sure seem to. 

Regardless as to the debate about whether or not cross-platform development costs more. I think most people with a software development background would agree that since WOTC has already committed to DirectX the costs involved in any future cross-platform porting will be considerable. It is very costly to attempt to make software targeted at one platform platform agnostic. So I don't think it's realistic to expect a Mac or Linux port. In fact I would expect that if they were to decide to support other OS's they would decide to simply rewrite everything form scratch to be platform agnostic. 

However, if you are still hopeful for a port of the DDI software I have this piece of advice. Every person who uses a hack (virtual machine, wine, bootcamp, etc) has voted for the status quo. Why should WOTC bother to make a native version for you if you are willing to pay for a sub-par experience? This is the problem with these solutions, there very existence removes the motivation for companies to make native ports of their software. I have chosen to use VMware Fusion and Bootcamp to allow me to run critical software on my mac. Since I do not consider DDI to be critical and I wish to get a native port of the software I will not be using either of these solutions to run DDI. 

Instead I will probably sign up for DDI for one month and then cancel my subscription with a email to WOTC explaining why (lack of support for my platform of choice). I believe that WOTC will be more inclined to listen to someone who has proved that they wish to be paying customer than some anonymous ranter on the the internet. Also if many alternate platform users did the same it WOTC could actually see how much money they are missing out on. It's hard for them to quantify how many people are waiting for a native port to sign-up.

Hopefully I've made my arguments against using workarounds clear. I have no problem if you are the user of an alternate OS and are willing to live with some kind of workaround. I just don't want to hear these same people complaining about not getting a port after they vote (with their money) to support the status quo.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Sep 14, 2007)

HatWearingFool said:
			
		

> A couple of things...
> 
> I work as a programmer for a Post Secondary Education Institute in Canada. And I can tell you that around here Mac sales among students are literally sky-rocketing. Our institution and others that we keep in touch with are all in the same boat. Our services for students are now being re-written to work with multiple platforms due to increasing demand from our customers. Although many services have been moved to the web using standards in the last 5 years so this isn't that bad of a situation for us.



I've made this point in previous discussions on mac market share in the past few weeks. It seems that until the _corporate_ world adopts macs at a 50/50 ratio there will always be an excuse that macs are worthy of being left out. When looking at trends in the highly desired target demographic of college-aged laptop users, the affected groups ratio is even more dramatic.

But I also think that Charles Ryan's original post is being lost in the discussion on this thread. Even though macs have a small share of the total marketshare of all computers in the US, statistically it works out that 50% of *groups* will have be negatively affected by the decision to not target mac users.

Lastly, that so much of the meat of the DDI is being thrown into a *client* also ignores other important trends in the market and also bothers me. The more that is thrown into a client app means the trends towards web-browsing consumer handsets (highlighted by the iPhone and iPod touch) is an opportunity that is going to be missed.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 14, 2007)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> Lastly, that so much of the meat of the DDI is being thrown into a *client* also ignores other important trends in the market and also bothers me. The more that is thrown into a client app means the trends towards web-browsing consumer handsets (highlighted by the iPhone and iPod touch) is an opportunity that is going to be missed.



This, I agree with.  I would have preferred a robust web-based interface to something run on the user's machine.  Also, how awesome would it be to play D&D on a Blackberry with a Bluetooth headseat on a train, or in the park, or while you're wandering down the street to the sandwich place?  Pretty awesome, I think.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Sep 14, 2007)

> But I also think that Charles Ryan's original post is being lost in the discussion on this thread. Even though macs have a small share of the total marketshare of all computers in the US, statistically it works out that 50% of groups will have be negatively affected by the decision to not target mac users.




As has also been pointed out, the 50% of all groups number is only correct if one assumes that Mac users are evenly distributed among roleplaying groups, rather than clustered.  This is a _huge_ assumption, and would seem to be contra-indicated by all this talk of Macs taking over the universities.


----------



## Breschau of Livonia (Sep 15, 2007)

Some random thoughts...

My on-hiatus group would be perfect for the digital initiative.  We have one player who has moved  out of state who would game with us via a combination of webcam/VoIP/IM.  It works ok, but a program geared for playing D&D would be ideal.  But...   I (the DM), use a Mac, he uses a PC.

Does that mean we won't play D&D 4e?  No, but...  Were such support available on a multiplatform basis, we'd be more likely to play D&D than other games.  i.e. it would make D&D more competitive vs. other possible games such as Savage Worlds, Mutants & Masterminds, etc.


----------



## Jhaelen (Sep 15, 2007)

I didn't read the whole thread, so I'm not sure if it's already been pointed out, but Macs are pretty much completely irrelevant outside of the US.


----------



## Kunimatyu (Sep 15, 2007)

Crazy Jerome said:
			
		

> As has also been pointed out, the 50% of all groups number is only correct if one assumes that Mac users are evenly distributed among roleplaying groups, rather than clustered.  This is a _huge_ assumption, and would seem to be contra-indicated by all this talk of Macs taking over the universities.




Isn't this actually a concern, since tons and tons of D&D players get into the game in a college environment, and as such are more likely than the average joe to encounter/be Mac users? Isn't one of the_ *stated DI goals*_ to be able to reconnect with your college gaming group?

Honestly, I'm just surprised WotC didn't realize about the laptop percentages for macs, which become even more significant when you consider that few macs are "locked down" for work purposes, whereas a substantial number of PC laptops are.

That being said, I'm much more excited about the new ruleset -- I still fear that the computer-based content will be eTools 2.0, and the talk of paying for digital miniatures just annoys the heck out of me.


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 15, 2007)

Kunimatyu said:
			
		

> Honestly, I'm just surprised WotC didn't realize about the laptop percentages for macs, which become even more significant when you consider that few macs are "locked down" for work purposes, whereas a substantial number of PC laptops are.




WotC has stated that they have done market research among their user base.  You can choose to guess at the market percentage Macs have among D&D players (at least those likely to use DDI), but as far as I know only WotC has seen the numbers.

Whatever the percentage is, 2% or 50%, WotC has decided that their approach is appropriate for their user base.  You can question their research, or even accuse them of lying about the research, but I don't think doing so is going to change their position.


----------



## Michael Morris (Sep 15, 2007)

Personally I welcome WotC's decision - it opens up a niche I can exploit.  I will be writing OGL tools for 4e using Actionscript 3. While admittedly this means the graphics won't be as snazzy - the aps will run on any system that can run a flash 9 player. That's PC, Mac, Linux, multiple PDA's, iPhone and even the Nintendo Wii, xBox 360 and PS3 through their browsers.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Sep 15, 2007)

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> This poll does not take into account how many people run more than one OS. How many Mac users also own a PC?




Hi Scott, this wasn't actually a poll. These are the statistics of the visitors that come to our company website, The Inner Circle. Being only a company site for d20, I think its safe to say that 99% of the people that visit our website are either d20 players or interested in RPGs. We track all of the visitors that come to our website using Google Analytics and that is what I used to compile this data.

As someone else mentioned, this certainly isn't a metric of the entire D&D audience and we only represent a tiny slice. Our site averages around 5,000 visitors a month although we have dropped off significantly in the past several months because of a lack of updates. Of these numbers, I really can't tell you how many people also have PCs or which of the computers (if they do have both OS's) they would rather use for the Digital Initiative. The fact that 1/4 of the people that visit our site are using a Mac is somewhat telling IMO though.

Admittedly, this is far less then perfect, but it is at least _something_ to go from.


----------



## cthulhu_duck (Sep 15, 2007)

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> This poll does not take into account how many people run more than one OS. How many Mac users also own a PC?




I would imagine that most of those people who run more than one OS are Mac and Linux users who also run windows - but only when they must.

I'm a Mac user.  I've used virtual PC in the past - and even with the new technologies, I'd prefer to stay in the Mac OS and only have to use Windows software if I absolutely have to e.g. if I don't and there's another option like Maptool, I'll use that instead.

Of the Mac users I know personally, I'm the only one who also owns a PC.  It's around 8 years old and is running Windows 2000.  It also never gets connected to the Internet.

I don't have a new Intel based Mac.  I'm not planning on buying a new computer (probably a Mac) until 2009.

So, come this time next year, I won't be checking out the DDI.  As the only member of my group vaguely interested in 4E, this is disappointing.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Sep 15, 2007)

cthulhu_duck said:
			
		

> So, come this time next year, I won't be checking out the DDI.  As the only member of my group vaguely interested in 4E, this is disappointing.



I will be checking DDI out, only to see if there is a payment level that excludes using a client app. If there is, meaning there would be just a browser-based level, then I'm probably all over it credit card in hand.


----------



## Imp (Sep 15, 2007)

Michael Morris said:
			
		

> Personally I welcome WotC's decision - it opens up a niche I can exploit.  I will be writing OGL tools for 4e using Actionscript 3. While admittedly this means the graphics won't be as snazzy - the aps will run on any system that can run a flash 9 player. That's PC, Mac, Linux, multiple PDA's, iPhone and even the Nintendo Wii, xBox 360 and PS3 through their browsers.



Dude!  That's what I'm talkin' about.

I welcome your welcoming of WotC's decision.  May all niches be exploited!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 15, 2007)

> My dad stuck with Apple even during the years that I couldn't. (Plus, during that time, I decided Playstation was for games, computer wasn't--with some minor exceptions.) Yet he has never had a lack of Mac games. In fact, we just bought him another one for his birthday.
> 
> Once you separate the crap (however you define it) out of the vast majority of game software, you find that a lot of what remains is Mac compatible.




I understand that 100%!

It has been my experience that I can usually find the best of the best games available for my Mac, either as programs designed from the get-go to be cross-platform or in subseqent, ports to Mac OS, or even rewritten Mac OS native versions.

HOWEVER...

The trick is finding them at all!

I have a few buddies who are professional game programmers, so they often tell me when something is coming up for my machine.  However, even when I know a game has been released, I often can't find it.  Example from a few years ago:  There was a great offroad racing game called 4x4 Evo.  It was cross-platform for PCs/Macs/Playstations (which one, I don't recall).  Even after I purchased it (having seen a great review in one of the magazines and actually talking to one of my buddies who worked on it), it was only available on about 33% of the websites I visited shopping for games for my Mac.

I once even found a site that listed cheat codes for Mac versions of games...most of which I never even saw for sale.

You can't buy that which you do not know exists.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Sep 15, 2007)

Michael Morris said:
			
		

> even the Nintendo Wii




Find a way to support the Wii remote properly and you have your first customer!


----------



## Hussar (Sep 15, 2007)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> I've made this point in previous discussions on mac market share in the past few weeks. It seems that until the _corporate_ world adopts macs at a 50/50 ratio there will always be an excuse that macs are worthy of being left out. When looking at trends in the highly desired target demographic of college-aged laptop users, the affected groups ratio is even more dramatic.
> 
> But I also think that Charles Ryan's original post is being lost in the discussion on this thread. Even though macs have a small share of the total marketshare of all computers in the US, statistically it works out that 50% of *groups* will have be negatively affected by the decision to not target mac users.
> 
> Lastly, that so much of the meat of the DDI is being thrown into a *client* also ignores other important trends in the market and also bothers me. The more that is thrown into a client app means the trends towards web-browsing consumer handsets (highlighted by the iPhone and iPod touch) is an opportunity that is going to be missed.




There's a couple of problems with this.

First off, the only things that will be in the client apps are the chargen program and the Virtual tabletop.  That's it.  If you want access to all the other goodies, like your online library, Dungeon, Dragon, etc, you'll be able to without any problem on any computer.  It's really only those two things.  Not the meat of the DDI at all.  Just a couple of potatoes and maybe a carrot.  

The other problem is that Charles Ryan's initial idea is flawed.  DDI is like OpenRPG or any of the other VTT programs out there.  They are NOT for existing groups.  Heck, WOTC has stated this repeatedly.  If you are already in a stable tabletop group, then the VTT has nothing to do with you.  It can be adopted for tabletop play, but, that's not its function.

What will happen will look something like this:  A bunch of people sign up for the DDI.  A smaller group will start posting ads looking for players in their online games.  Those that have signed up for the DDI and have access to the VTT will join those games.

I know that VTT play is apparently seen akin to having relations with farm animals by a large segment of the EN World crowd, but, I'm here to tell you that there is a fairly large group of gamers who have no problem sitting down and playing D&D with people they've never met in real life.  The fact that I can go on the OpenRPG boards, post and ad and get a group together in about a week shows that there is a fair bit of interest in something like this.

If you're a Mac user and want to do VTT gaming, there are all sorts of options available to you right now.  DDI is just one of them.  There's nothing stopping a Mac user from having a DDI account for content and then playing on Kloogwerks.  So the DDI VTT isn't written for Macs?  Big deal.  Who cares?  There's a dozen others that ARE written for Macs.  Use one of them.


----------



## JDJblatherings (Sep 15, 2007)

Jhaelen said:
			
		

> I didn't read the whole thread, so I'm not sure if it's already been pointed out, but Macs are pretty much completely irrelevant outside of the US.





Another great reason to support the MAC , it is made in america !!!    

over a third of the Apples revenue is overseas sales, of course that could all be in mp3s and mp3 gadgets for all i know.


----------



## Lord Rasputin (Sep 15, 2007)

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> This poll does not take into account how many people run more than one OS. How many Mac users also own a PC?



IME, not many. I've worked ISP tech support and been a personal computer consultant, so I've actually handled folks who have multiple setups, and they are decidedly in the minority. Most of the Mac users to whom I spoke (I was the Mac guy) were typically artist types -- we had others, but they rarely called support. The mom and pop calling was almost always Windows. And your college kids? They have one computer, period, and they don't have the money or the space for more. They're prime DDI fodder (almost all colleges have hard-wired Internet to dorms), and Macs are more common with them than in most other circles there due to Apple's historic presence in education circles.

There is another problem with the two box question, which is that it gentrifies the market. Folks who own both a Mac and a Wintel box have more money than those who do not. Granted, Mac folks do tend to make a bit more moolah than Windows folks (an argument in favor of Mac support), but in my experience, folks stick with one platform and keep moving their software from computer to computer. Having to buy new versions of your software because you traded your Mac for a Windows box is rarely high on the desire scale for most folks, so this inertia keeps out switchers and two computer owners. I know aiming at the money isn't a terrible idea from a business standpoint, but even D&D players aren't *that* rich (I'd bet they do have more disposable income than US averages), and a big percentage of them are not.

Personally, I don't have an issue about supporting Windows first, so long as it's Windows first and not only. With Boot Camp/Parallels running on Intel Macs, I can see waiting six months to a year for Mac support, but eventually, what Charles pointed out will happen, and that will limit DDI growth.

Having said that, I shall ruffle a few feathers and come across as a Mac bigot when I mention that I wouldn't worry at all about Linux support. For them, what Scott said is mostly true -- most Linux folks have Windows around, often on the same machine.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Sep 15, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> First off, the only things that will be in the client apps are the chargen program and the Virtual tabletop.  That's it.  If you want access to all the other goodies, like your online library, Dungeon, Dragon, etc, you'll be able to without any problem on any computer.  It's really only those two things.  Not the meat of the DDI at all.  Just a couple of potatoes and maybe a carrot.



I don't believe this is true. I read that those two things were the only features that required DirectX. There is still a client app to access many other DDI features.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Sep 15, 2007)

JDJblatherings said:
			
		

> Another great reason to support the MAC , it is made in america !!!




that's a REALLY bad misspelling of china, dude


----------



## Imaro (Sep 15, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> If you're a Mac user and want to do VTT gaming, there are all sorts of options available to you right now.  DDI is just one of them.  There's nothing stopping a Mac user from having a DDI account for content and then playing on Kloogwerks.  So the DDI VTT isn't written for Macs?  Big deal.  Who cares?  There's a dozen others that ARE written for Macs.  Use one of them.




Uhm...I'm a Mac user and this reasoning is all well and good, until we get to the point where I'm paying the same for a subscription as someone with a PC and recieving less. Plain and simple.  Unless there's some way for me to reduce my subscription cost because I can't access certain features then I'm essentially paying for things in my subscription rate I can't use.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Sep 15, 2007)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> that's a REALLY bad misspelling of china, dude




 LOL!


----------



## Lalato (Sep 15, 2007)

I've said this on the WotC boards, but I'll add it here just to be the crossposting spammer that I like to think of myself as.  

I'm a Mac user.  I'm a D&D player.  I have played in online games before, and am currently playing in one (Age of Worms via Skype and IRC).  So in many ways I'm the target market.  However, I can never use the apps that WotC releases for their digital initiative.

Not only that, but lets take my Age of Worms game that I'm currently playing via Skype and IRC.  Most of the other players are Windows users.  We would all be interested in the new DI tools, but sadly, if the DM decides that he wants to move in that direction, I'll have to drop from the game.  If the DM and the other players decide to stay with the current setup because of me, Wizards will have lost a lot of potential customers.

You see... that's the problem here.  Sure, there will be new groups that form around the DI and they will obviously form around Windows users because they won't have a choice.  But there is also an audience out there of pre-made groups like mine that can't find a home on the D&D Game Table.  That's a real shame because I think we all agree that the concept of the D&D Game Table is awesome... and not including users like me means that it does, in fact, affect more than just the Mac users.  It affects Windows users too.

Now... here's the breakdown of value for D&D Insider (assuming $10 per month subscription)...

For DMs that use Windows, there is a great deal of value in DDI.  You get Dragon and Dungeon magazine content and you get to play will all the new apps.  At $10 per month, this is pretty good assuming that the apps and the content are all good.

For Players that use Windows, there is less of a great value in DDI.  You get Dragon and Dungeon (which you don't use as a Player) and you get to play with the Character Creator and Character Sheet apps.  So for $10 per month, it's debatable unless the Dragon content is stellar.

For DMs that use Macs/Linux, there is a decent value in DDI, You get Dragon and Dungeon magazine content which has a value of $6.50 per month ($39 per year from Paizo) and you might also gain access to some other content we don't know about yet to enhance your game.  At $10 per month it could be good if all that content is worth your while.

For Players that use Macs/Linux, there is little value in DDI.  You get Dragon content (you don't need Dungeon) and you don't get any use out of the apps.  $10 per month for just Dragon is a bit steep.  I can't imagine anyone paying for it.

So when I look at it like that, I have to say that for me, D&D Insider doesn't make sense financially.  For others (DMs, especially) it will be a good deal depending on their platform.  What I hope is that there will be a way to subscribe at a lower rate for just Dragon content or just Dungeon content or just the two magazines without any of the apps.  This would get me to at least try it out when they switch it to a for-pay format (right now it's all free).

--sam


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 15, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Uhm...I'm a Mac user and this reasoning is all well and good, until we get to the point where I'm paying the same for a subscription as someone with a PC and receiving less. Plain and simple.  Unless there's some way for me to reduce my subscription cost because I can't access certain features then I'm essentially paying for things in my subscription rate I can't use.



IIRC, they've already said that they're planning on making the DDI offerings available as individual components.

edit: this does not mean they will be, only that they're planning it.


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 15, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> IIRC, they've already said that they're planning on making the DDI offerings available as individual components.
> 
> edit: this does not mean they will be, only that they're planning it.



From the comments I've seen the only thing they have mentioned as "separate" was the VTT.  It sounds like the DM will likely have to be a DDI subscriber, but the other players would have a fee per session (or something, it appears to be in the discussion phase).


----------



## blargney the second (Sep 15, 2007)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> that's a REALLY bad misspelling of china, dude



*lmao*


----------



## Drengy (Sep 15, 2007)

I'm a Mac user who couldn't care less about the virtual game table. My group meets in-person, so we have no need for it.

BUT, I really, really want the online character sheet. For me, the biggest barrier/time sink as a player is the time I spend updating my character sheet, especially if I want to use a supplement. In my current campaign, I'm playing a strictly OGL character so that I can simply use PCGen as-is.

I really wish WotC created the character generator in the SaaS (Software as a Service) model. All the database could be on a server in the cloud, and anyone with a web browser could simply log-into their account, make changes, then print out a new character sheet. As I buy supplements, I enter the code printed in the book and I get access to the new rules instantly in my sheet. Again, there's no reason why there needs to be any client app for this, all I want is to be able to fill out an online form and have all the calculations and the layout of the character sheet updated so that I can print it out. For this functionality I would be more than willing to pay $5 per month. Throw-in digital Dragon and Dungeon magazines, and that becomes $10 per month.

There are so many advantages to this I'm flabbergasted WotC isn't doing it this way.

Windows, Mac, Linux would all work.

Sigh…


----------



## SlyFlourish (Sep 15, 2007)

I'm a Mac user as well who would much prefer a web-based or Flash-based solution to a thick client. Beyond the Mac vs PC debate, it is a lot easier to use a friend's computer when you're there or switch client machines and not lose any of your stuff. This isn't World of Warcraft we're playing, this is D&D. I'd prefer a much simpler interface and a web client to a thick client with lots of doo-dads.


----------



## Nifft (Sep 15, 2007)

mshea said:
			
		

> Beyond the Mac vs PC debate, it is a lot easier to use a friend's computer when you're there or switch client machines and not lose any of your stuff.



 QFT. The ability to print out a character from someone else's computer is a major reason why we use a Wiki right now.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Breschau of Livonia (Sep 16, 2007)

mshea said:
			
		

> Beyond the Mac vs PC debate, it is a lot easier to use a friend's computer when you're there or switch client machines and not lose any of your stuff.




I wonder if you could steal a friend's virtual miniatures if you have access to his computer...  Or maybe steal some of his character's equipment.  Just plug in your memory stick while he's on a bathroom break...


----------



## RFisher (Sep 16, 2007)

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> How come every time this comes up it turns into a debate on who knows what about the creation of cross compatible software? We also get the whole I can get what I want on my Mac and have people starting with the whole OS debate. Sheesh! Not trying to thread crap, but this just bugs me.




I apologize. I should've known better.

Whether you believe it is relevant to the virtual game table or not, the original point stands: When you're targeting a group instead of individuals, a small minority of individuals can mean a large percentage of groups.

The way I heard it, they are targeting things like: groups that played together in college but are now geographically diverse; & that they "hoped" that it would be used by new groups as well. So, it seems like a fair point.


----------



## Ds Da Man (Sep 16, 2007)

I think they should concentrate on a working, good version for windows before worrying about any other platform. Just make ONE GOOD WORKING VERSION!


----------



## Mercule (Sep 16, 2007)

Ds Da Man said:
			
		

> I think they should concentrate on a working, good version for windows before worrying about any other platform. Just make ONE GOOD WORKING VERSION!




I shoudn't bite, but:  There have been several.  XP, Vista, and most of the Servers are just peachy.


----------



## Nifft (Sep 16, 2007)

> How come every time this comes up it turns into a debate on who knows what about the creation of cross compatible software?





			
				Ds Da Man said:
			
		

> I think they should concentrate on a working, good version for windows before worrying about any other platform. Just make ONE GOOD WORKING VERSION!



 This is why.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Sep 17, 2007)

Mercule said:
			
		

> I shoudn't bite, but:  There have been several.  XP, Vista, and most of the Servers are just peachy.



He didn't say there should be a good working version *OF* Windows, he said they (WotC) should put together one good working version (of DDI) *FOR* Windows (instead of versions all across different platforms).


----------



## Mercule (Sep 17, 2007)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> He didn't say there should be a good working version *OF* Windows, he said they (WotC) should put together one good working version (of DDI) *FOR* Windows (instead of versions all across different platforms).




Doh!  You're right.


----------



## Breschau of Livonia (Sep 17, 2007)

*Parallels Desktop 3.0*

Over the weekend I updated Parallels on my Mac to the newest version (3.0).  Going through my drivers I noticed it has the WINE version of Directx 9.0c.  That's no guarantee of working with Digital Initiative, but it is promising.  DirectX 3D support can sometimes be a bit tricky - for example when I tried running FantasyGrounds demo version in my Virtual Desktop (which requires DirectX 9) things were pretty buggy - everything appeared all black unless it was highlighted by the mouse, then it appeared.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Sep 18, 2007)

Many of the posts on this thread have alluded to the technical challenges of a cross-platform launch. I have no technical insight, so I won't debate that issue at length. I'll just make this point: World of Warcraft launched with both a PC and Mac client. To my knowledge, and based on the success of the game, I don't think it was "dumbed down" or extra buggy because they did that. So it can be done, if there's a will.

Furthermore, while I doubt that multi-platform compatibililty is the central key to WoW's success, it is a competitive advantage over other fantasy IPs. If I was WotC, I'd be very concerned about granting my key competitors in the fantasy play mindspace _any_ competitive advantage.

Finally, just to throw some random fuel on the fire, some people have mentioned that companies often develop for PC only because frankly that's all they know; everyone within the walls uses a PC, so they simply aren't thinking about Macs. I suspect that's often true, but, ironically, WotC is a very Mac-friendly company. The large art, graphic design, and layout departments are dominated by Macs, but Macs are also common in R&D and even the business side of things (and, of course, the IT department that supports all these machines). So it's not blindness to the Mac that led WotC in this direction.


----------



## JDJblatherings (Sep 18, 2007)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> that's a REALLY bad misspelling of china, dude





Final assembly happens in the U.S. (or Ireland for the euro market) and yuo can actually get them repaired in the u.s. instead of having to ship them to taiwan or india to keep your manufacturers warranty.


----------



## Stormtalon (Sep 18, 2007)

mshea said:
			
		

> I'm a Mac user as well who would much prefer a web-based or Flash-based solution to a thick client. Beyond the Mac vs PC debate, it is a lot easier to use a friend's computer when you're there or switch client machines and not lose any of your stuff. This isn't World of Warcraft we're playing, this is D&D. I'd prefer a much simpler interface and a web client to a thick client with lots of doo-dads.




Oh, please, no.  Web/flash-based is completely unsuitable for something of this scale.  Barring the vagaries of the mix of different browsers these days, you'd have to download all the graphics fresh each time you logged in.  No thanks -- I'll take a thick client any day over the overly-hyped, always under-performing web-based crap.


----------



## WizarDru (Sep 18, 2007)

CharlesRyan said:
			
		

> Furthermore, while I doubt that multi-platform compatibililty is the central key to WoW's success, it is a competitive advantage over other fantasy IPs. If I was WotC, I'd be very concerned about granting my key competitors in the fantasy play mindspace _any_ competitive advantage.




I'd say it was a competitive advantage for Blizzard in the Mac realm, certainly....developing a MMORPG for the underserved Mac market.  I mean, other than WoW, the only real large-scale MMO for the Mac is Everquest I (!) or Second Life...and the EQ Mac version arrived four years after EQ's launch and lacked some of the core features.  WoW is unique in doing a simultaneous client launch....but Blizzard has a long-standing history of doing this with all their products.  This is why they are always best-sellers on the mac side, as their one of the few companies that releases A-list titles on the mac, and day-and-date of the PC releases, to boot.  This is very rare, though.

The market is also vastly different for MMORPGs versus pen-and-paper RPGs.  D&D is the 800-lb. gorilla, as I'm sure you know better than most, Charles.  Whither WotC, so goes the industry (and hence a large portion of the kerfluffle about 4e is the fact that everyone has to react to WotC's move, like it or not).  In the MMORPG realm, there are MANY competitors, and the success of WoW came as much of a surprise to Blizzard as anyone else.  No one expected it to have such phenomenal success, especially with established successes in place like Everquest and Lineage.  WoW's dominance of the market was not assumed at launch...in fact it was widely viewed as possibly being too-late to the party to make a meaningful dent.  That seems ludicrous in hindsight, but at the time, there was no guarantee of success for Blizzard.



			
				CharlesRyan said:
			
		

> I suspect that's often true, but, ironically, WotC is a very Mac-friendly company. The large art, graphic design, and layout departments are dominated by Macs, but Macs are also common in R&D and even the business side of things (and, of course, the IT department that supports all these machines). So it's not blindness to the Mac that led WotC in this direction.




No, but being friendly to USING macs isn't the same as being friendly to DEVELOPING on macs.  And I don't know what kind of development team WotC has in-house, if any...but I'm guessing the availability of mac-specific developers and associated cost _may_ be a factor...but I'm generally pretty ignorant of the market in this regard.  One could validly argue that if they went with a browser-based solution they wouldn't have to worry about that, but there are drawbacks to that approach...and frankly without knowing what data WotC has at it's fingertips and what criteria they're planning by, I can't say how wise the decision is to ignore Macs.

I still maintain, however, that Mac users have long experienced this sort of treatment.  Seeing as how Apple was founded on the backs of the computer hobbyist and amateur developers and clubs, this isn't that surprising.  People will find a way, if they desire a solution badly enough...the open-source movement is a pure example of that.  I wouldn't be typing this in FireFox right now if it didn't.


----------



## Doc_Klueless (Sep 19, 2007)

JDJblatherings said:
			
		

> Final assembly happens in the U.S. (or Ireland for the euro market) and yuo can actually get them repaired in the u.s. instead of having to ship them to taiwan or india to keep your manufacturers warranty.



 Weeeell, according to the tracking software that followed the route of my computer came... well, straight to me from Shanghai China, unless UPS assembled my computer.


----------



## The Hound (Sep 23, 2007)

I just took a look at the operating systems poll that was linked to earlier.  By my calculation, Mac/Linux/Unix/Other account for 42% of Enworld users (Enworld's poll feature seems to have a math bug - their percentages add up to more than 100%).  This jives with my casual observation over the years that gamers tend to be much less Windows centric than the general population. 

Thus WOTC may be locking out a very large chunk of their potential customer base.  However, that's only for their VTT, right?  I can't think of any reason that they would have to design  secure online magazine access in such a way that Mac and Linux users can't access it with any up to date browser.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Sep 23, 2007)

its possible. out of our group counting the dm, we have  2 mac users, and 3 pc users.


----------



## Ulorian - Agent of Chaos (Sep 23, 2007)

The Hound said:
			
		

> I just took a look at the operating systems poll that was linked to earlier.  By my calculation, Mac/Linux/Unix/Other account for 42% of Enworld users (Enworld's poll feature seems to have a math bug - their percentages add up to more than 100%).  This jives with my casual observation over the years that gamers tend to be much less Windows centric than the general population.
> 
> Thus WOTC may be locking out a very large chunk of their potential customer base.  However, that's only for their VTT, right?  I can't think of any reason that they would have to design  secure online magazine access in such a way that Mac and Linux users can't access it with any up to date browser.



I would suggest that the poll results are a little biased. Non-Windows users are much more sensitive to cross-browser issues and are more likely to vote in a poll of this nature than Windows users.


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 24, 2007)

The Hound said:
			
		

> I just took a look at the operating systems poll that was linked to earlier.



As stated earlier, a poll of this nature has little relevance.  It's a pretty self-selecting sample.  Most accurately it's a poll of those ENWorld members who visit the computer forum, who were attracted by the thread title, who vote in polls, who visiting the forum during that time period.  The most biased point are people who felt they wanted to open the thread to see what it was about.



> (Enworld's poll feature seems to have a math bug - their percentages add up to more than 100%). .




In that poll could answer multiple times.  To give an extreme example, if only one person voted and had both Windows and Linux, each system would show 100% of the voters voting for it.  Even just counting those who answered the poll, it was certainly less than 42% since some of those with Macs have Linux or something else as well.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Sep 24, 2007)

The Hound said:
			
		

> However, that's only for their VTT, right?




As I understand it, it's also the character generator, which to me is the most enticing part of the package.

But it's a single-user function, so locking out macs means locking out only mac users. So yes, the broader point--that _locking out macs locks out entire groups that include any mac users_--applies only to the VTT.


----------



## Nifft (Sep 24, 2007)

CharlesRyan said:
			
		

> As I understand it, it's also the character generator, which to me is the most enticing part of the package.



 Isn't it also the part of the package you'd most want to use when away from home? Like, to print out your character? 

DM with a Mac, -- N


----------



## Mercule (Sep 24, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Isn't it also the part of the package you'd most want to use when away from home? Like, to print out your character?




Eh, we shunt around data files, currently, for PCGen or HeroForge.  As long as the DDI chargen has a "print to PDF", it's no worse to send your GM that.  I agree, though, that I've had many players forget to print/update their sheet before a game and it'd be nice to have remote access.

I definitely hope there is a Mac version.  I don't have anyone in my circle of influence who uses one, but that doesn't mean I don't want to see all gamers have a common tool available to them.  I just don't think WotC is alienating quite the number of gamers that has been argued.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Sep 24, 2007)

CharlesRyan said:
			
		

> So we all know that the mac is a minority OS. WotC says that their market research indicates that only a small minority of their gamers use macs. If their data matches other data sources, the size of that minority is less than 10% of home computer users.
> 
> Great. DDI can be a success with only 90% of the market.
> 
> ...




You're not accounting for clustering.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 25, 2007)

CharlesRyan said:
			
		

> As I understand it, it's also the character generator, which to me is the most enticing part of the package.
> 
> But it's a single-user function, so locking out macs means locking out only mac users. So yes, the broader point--that _locking out macs locks out entire groups that include any mac users_--applies only to the VTT.




But, you're still assuming something that's not true.  The VTT isn't for existing groups.  Why would I target existing groups?  That doesn't make any sense.  The VTT will be a place where everyone who pays for the DI will be able to find a group.  It's for the creation of new groups.

Now, that still leaves Mac's out in the cold and that sucks.  But, your idea that the concept is doomed to failure because existing groups won't be able to use it is faulty.  They don't care about existing groups.

I suspect, and this is only a suspicion, that the VTT will be used as a vehicle to really push RPGA games.  If the RPGA gets behind the VTT, then you can have a RPGA sanctioned game running 24/7.  All you have to do is load up, look through the list, pick a table that's starting soon and poof, instant 4 or 5 hours of gaming.  The online Character program will store your RPGA sheet nicely (so no cheating) and you can move on to the next RPGA sanctioned game on your own time.

With so many RPGA members, if they can grab even a fraction of them and co-opt them into the DI, then they are golden.


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 25, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> The VTT isn't for existing groups.  Why would I target existing groups?  That doesn't make any sense.  The VTT will be a place where everyone who pays for the DI will be able to find a group.  It's for the creation of new groups.




One of the group types that have specifically been mentioned are disbanded groups.  For example, my 6 year gaming group from the 80s is now in Seattle, DC, San Francisco, Utah, LA and here in Delaware.  I'm confident we could arrange a reunion of most of us with a good VTT and tools.

However, that isn't strictly an "existing" group, and isn't their only target.


----------



## cthulhu_duck (Sep 25, 2007)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> You're not accounting for clustering.




Sure.  But of the groups I've been a member of, I'm the only Mac user that I'm aware of.

In my primary group, I'm the DM more often than not.  Of all the group, I'm the one most interested in 4E (because my 3.5 cleric/wizard doesn't really work).  Not being able to run the DDI applications at home on my Mac?  Not an enticement to subscribe to the DDI.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Sep 25, 2007)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> You're not accounting for clustering.




Clustering is a hypothesis, just as the oft-cited view the Mac use skews higher among gamers is a hypothesis. I think the two are a wash.

And frankly, that doesn't alter the underlying point. When the basic unit is a group of 6 users, rather than a single user, the percentage of basic units affected by Mac exclusion is much, much higher. Is it 50%? 90%? 30%? I don't know. But I strongly suspect that it's higher that the "negligible" level that WotC (and many other companies) often ascribe to Mac usage.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Sep 25, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> The VTT isn't for existing groups.  Why would I target existing groups?




The VTT feature has very much been promoted as a way for gamers who have dropped out of gaming for lifestyle reasons to get their groups back together.

You're right, the VTT is not intended to replace the face-to-face play of my current Thursday-night group. But it _has been promoted_ as a way for me to get my old Seattle gaming group back together, now that we live in disparate cities.

And it may well replace face-to-face play in my Thursday group, once Alex gets around to having a baby and too many of us are parents to make a regular evening out of the house practical.

In both cases, if _any member_ of the group is a Mac-user, we're faced with the prospect of no game, or of kicking the Mac user out of our gaming group.


----------



## Archmage (Sep 25, 2007)

CharlesRyan said:
			
		

> The VTT feature has very much been promoted as a way for gamers who have dropped out of gaming for lifestyle reasons to get their groups back together.
> 
> You're right, the VTT is not intended to replace the face-to-face play of my current Thursday-night group. But it _has been promoted_ as a way for me to get my old Seattle gaming group back together, now that we live in disparate cities.




Not quite accurate - I don't see any blurbs from WotC that say "this will enable CharlesRyan to get his old Seattle group together." (I'm sorry if this sounds snarky - don't mean it to, just trying to make a point) And it will very likely do what it is promoted to do - for folks with Windows PCs. HD TV is promoted as pretty much the same thing as "being there" visually - but if your favorite channel doesn't have a HD feed, not so much. Having a subset of potential customers not being able to use a product's features doesn't mean that those features don't work as advertised. If that subset of customers turns out to be larger than WotC expected, then we'd likely see them take steps to rectify that.



> And it may well replace face-to-face play in my Thursday group, once Alex gets around to having a baby and too many of us are parents to make a regular evening out of the house practical.
> 
> In both cases, if _any member_ of the group is a Mac-user, we're faced with the prospect of no game, or of kicking the Mac user out of our gaming group.




You forgot a third option - use one of the other virtual tabletop solutions that is cross-platform. If it turns out that Mac use is as proliferate as some folks state here, then Klooge and its ilk will have nigh as many users as the VTT. That would surely spur WotC to begin cross-platform work, no?


----------



## RFisher (Sep 25, 2007)

The fact that Randy Buehler in his Gamer Radio GenCon interview came off as having no clue that there have been tools in the same vein since 3e was released--or that people have been doing essentially the same thing for quite some time with general purpose tools--doesn't give me warm fuzzies about the Wizards' virtual table anyway. Even though the demo did look pretty good.

In the end, the good news is probably that the Wizards' tool is going to inspire even more improvements in the alternatives.

The really striking thing to me about the Mac these days: From 1984 until a few years back, nearly every Mac user I knew was someone I either met through a Mac context (like a users group or working at Apple or another "Mac shop") or someone that I convinced to try a Mac. These days, I know lots of Mac users even though I don't really spend any time in "Mac contexts" or bother to evangelize.

Not only do a lot of my co-workers have Macs at home, we've got an awful lot of them on desks around here too. & I'm working in embedded software--not DTP, graphic design, or any of the other places you traditionally find Macs in business.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 25, 2007)

Archmage said:
			
		

> You forgot a third option - use one of the other virtual tabletop solutions that is cross-platform. If it turns out that Mac use is as proliferate as some folks state here, then Klooge and its ilk will have nigh as many users as the VTT. That would surely spur WotC to begin cross-platform work, no?



Here's a question.  If VTT support is such a critical issue for mac people, why are they complaining about the lack of mac support by the DDI, and not already using a mac-compatible VTT provided by some other company?


----------



## akaddk (Sep 25, 2007)

I think one of the most significant things about the multitude of threads like this that have pages and pages of responses is that there are multitudes of threads like this with pages and pages of responses.

That pretty much says it all, I think.


----------



## (contact) (Sep 25, 2007)

akaddk said:
			
		

> I think one of the most significant things about the multitude of threads like this that have pages and pages of responses is that there are multitudes of threads like this with pages and pages of responses.




That is so Zen, you must be a Mac user.

I'm not in any position to question whether or not WotC made the right business call to use DirectX, and therefore cut Mac users out of the equation, but I've already had to turn down three offers for virtual gaming from far-flung friends because I don't have a PC.  That sucks a little, but I'll get over it.  It does sour me on dndinsider, and predisposes me to judge with my rose-colored glasses off when it finally launches.

I am hoping that the app does what it says it will without any major drag or bugs -- I think for people on Windows machines, this will be a really cool tool.  It's a great way to bridge geographical disatance for a few hours of D&D with your far-flung buddes.

But the development decisions so far seem kind of dodgy.  For me, James Wyatt says it all when he quotes Charlie Trotter in his blog: "This is how I see excellence. It embraces generosity, humbleness, and sincerity of effort. At its heart, it's about never being satisfied. It has nothing to do with perfection. I'm not a perfectionist—but an excellence-ist. . . . Excellence means always trying harder and never growing complacent."

I think that love or hate the rules/setting changes, we have seen a sincere desire for excellence among the 4e game designers.  Among the software developers?  Not so much.  Again, it might be in WotC's best short-term interest (although certainly not D&D's best interest) to do things the way they are; we aren't really privvy to the information we'd need to judge that.  What I do think we know is that cutting corners and a "git 'er dun" mentality only very rarely produce excellence, and even then, only in the hands of master craftpeople.

My current best-guess is that they had their timeline shortened by several months-- it's a theory that seems to hold water when you look at some of the squirrely decisions:

- Cutting out cross-platform development 
- Announcing at GenCon rather than D&D Experience (after telling us all announcements would be at D&DE)
- A seemingly very short public playtest cycle


----------



## Hussar (Sep 25, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Here's a question.  If VTT support is such a critical issue for mac people, why are they complaining about the lack of mac support by the DDI, and not already using a mac-compatible VTT provided by some other company?




Bingo!

There are half a dozen or more VTT programs out there right now.  They all work.  

WOTC can say whatever it wants publicly, but, at the end of the day, it's going to be new groups that drive the VTT, not disbanded groups from ten years ago.  If those groups wanted to play together, there is absolutely nothing stopping them from doing so right now.  The existence of the DDI does nothing to change that.

Yet, people are only now starting to talk about getting the old group together?  Must not have been much of a priority.  I'm thinking that it will remain a pretty low priority after the DDI as well.

No, it's going to be new groups, all of which will be PC users (because that's the only option right now) driving the VTT scene.  As I said before, I can really see the RPGA driving this forward.  Being able to play RPGA sanctioned games for prizes 24/7 is going to be a major draw.  And, if it's RPGA based, then existing groups don't really matter at all.


----------



## Stormtalon (Sep 25, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Here's a question.  If VTT support is such a critical issue for mac people, why are they complaining about the lack of mac support by the DDI, and not already using a mac-compatible VTT provided by some other company?




Howabout because we'd like to be able to subscribe to the Digital Initiative and get _all_ of the functionality out of it, not just a subset?  That's the big kicker, really.  Dragon & Dungeon are great, yes -- and probably worth the price, but still there's a large chunk of it that we'd be _effectively paying for, but unable to use_.

This is not a reason to be vocal?


----------



## Hussar (Sep 25, 2007)

Stormtalon said:
			
		

> Howabout because we'd like to be able to subscribe to the Digital Initiative and get _all_ of the functionality out of it, not just a subset?  That's the big kicker, really.  Dragon & Dungeon are great, yes -- and probably worth the price, but still there's a large chunk of it that we'd be _effectively paying for, but unable to use_.
> 
> This is not a reason to be vocal?




Certainly, and I fully agree with you that Mac should be supported.

But, that's not what this thread is about.  CharlesRyan is claiming that because many groups will contain at least one Mac, the DDI is doomed to failure.  This assumes that the DDI will primarily be made up of existing groups.  I feel that this assumption is badly flawed.


----------



## Stormtalon (Sep 25, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Certainly, and I fully agree with you that Mac should be supported.
> 
> But, that's not what this thread is about.  CharlesRyan is claiming that because many groups will contain at least one Mac, the DDI is doomed to failure.  This assumes that the DDI will primarily be made up of existing groups.  I feel that this assumption is badly flawed.




The assumption may very well be -- but there's honestly no real way to tell.  However, in at least my own case, I'm the primary DM of a group where I have to drive 80 miles on the weekend just to get down to them, and DDI would significanly simplify things (and save gas, heh).  Still, bein' a Machead, not exactly gonna be an option.

Still, I was primarily responding to the more general point made by Dr. Awkward.  Yeah, I've looked at the VTT stuff out there, but it's all got flaws that (at least from the initial videos) DDI seems to be addressing.  I like the tile-based mapmaking.  I like the character design system that lets you drop a virtual mini of exactly your character on the map.  The 3rd party stuff doesn't have any of that, and it's not as tightly integrated into the e-book versions of the PHB/MM/DMG as DDI will be.  So, at least from this Machead's perspective, the 3rd party stuff just isn't at all attractive.

Still I do try to be proactive and suggest solutions to the WOTC folks that would at least be an acceptable amount of "porting."  I've mentioned TransGaming's "Cider" on the WOTC boards a few times so far -- but never seen even a hint that they're even interested in constructive suggestions.


----------



## akaddk (Sep 26, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Yet, people are only now starting to talk about getting the old group together?  Must not have been much of a priority.  I'm thinking that it will remain a pretty low priority after the DDI as well.



Not everyone is a computer guru.

In fact, many people choose the Mac because you don't HAVE to be a a computer whiz to get the most out of a tool.

Unless OpenRPG has changed a LOT since I last tried it, then it is a MAJOR PITA to get working and requires extensive reading and understanding of complex programs like Python. And if you don't think such things are complex, then you're among the minority who I'd call a computer whiz.

Then there's the expense of things like Kloogewerks which, again unless it has changed significantly since last I checked it out, was prohibitively expensive.

The DDI solution, however, is FREE and seems to have been made simple enough that any computer noob can click a few buttons and get it working satisfactorily.

So you say that there are VTT options all over the place for us Mac-users. Umm... no, there's not. I don't consider difficult, expensive and cumbersome choices to be options.


----------



## Nifft (Sep 26, 2007)

akaddk said:
			
		

> The DDI solution, however, is FREE*



 *) ADDITIONAL ONLINE FEES APPLY.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 26, 2007)

akaddk said:
			
		

> Not everyone is a computer guru.
> 
> In fact, many people choose the Mac because you don't HAVE to be a a computer whiz to get the most out of a tool.



Hey, I guess that makes my mother a computer whiz.  She has no problem operating the software on her PC.

Seriously, that sounds more like an insult to the intelligence of the people who buy macs than any kind of slight against Windows-based systems.



> Unless OpenRPG has changed a LOT since I last tried it, then it is a MAJOR PITA to get working and requires extensive reading and understanding of complex programs like Python. And if you don't think such things are complex, then you're among the minority who I'd call a computer whiz.



I don't know Python from my butt, but I found OpenRPG to be an easy system to use.  Perhaps if I wanted to heavily modify it, I would have to learn to get under the hood, but I could say that about Firefox too.



> The DDI solution, however, is FREE and seems to have been made simple enough that any computer noob can click a few buttons and get it working satisfactorily.



Um...what?  Who said it was free?


----------



## akaddk (Sep 26, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Hey, I guess that makes my mother a computer whiz.  She has no problem operating the software on her PC.



The above makes you either one of two types of people: a) you don't realize that a sentence taken out of the context of the entire post can be taken to mean something entirely different from what the poster intended, or b) you do realize this and you're manipulating the argument to be divisive.

So either you just don't get it or you just don't care.


			
				Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Um...what?  Who said it was free?



It has been stated that what you are paying for with a DDI subscription is the additional content of Dragon & Dungeon and that the VTT is a free component.


----------



## Nifft (Sep 26, 2007)

akaddk said:
			
		

> It has been stated that what you are paying for with a DDI subscription is the additional content of Dragon & Dungeon and that the VTT is a free component.



 That's called "bundled", not free.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## akaddk (Sep 26, 2007)

/facepalm

Well they used the term free. YMMV ffs.


----------



## Nifft (Sep 26, 2007)

akaddk said:
			
		

> Well they used the term free.



 Lies? In my marketing literature?

Shocked, -- N

PS: If you're honestly confused about this, consider the following. You walk into a grocery store and see a sign saying, "Buy two lemons, get one lemon FREE!" Do you really think they will let you simply take one free lemon? You do not, and they will not. What they're really doing is saying, "three lemons for the price of two" -- but that's not sexy. So they lie a little. It's really basic marketing. Clearly, it works.


----------



## akaddk (Sep 26, 2007)

The only thing I'm confused about is your need to pick apart a very simple sentence and correct it to the nth degree when all it really is, is a matter of semantics.

Wait. I forgot. This is teh intarweb. My bad.


----------



## Griogre (Sep 26, 2007)

akaddk said:
			
		

> Not everyone is a computer guru.
> 
> In fact, many people choose the Mac because you don't HAVE to be a a computer whiz to get the most out of a tool.
> 
> ...



You might look into MapTool for a VTT:  http://rptools.net/doku.php?id=home
It's a Java app and while I do dislike most java apps the developer knows what he is doing and it runs well.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Sep 26, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> CharlesRyan is claiming that because many groups will contain at least one Mac, the DDI is doomed to failure.




To be clear, my claim is that when the basic consumer unit is the playing group, not the individual player, the number of basic consumer units affected by Mac exclusion rises from "negligible" to substantial.

DDI may still be quite successful, despite one of its key features lacking value for a substantial number of D&D consumers. But WotC will have left a lot of money on the table, given their competitors (3rd-party VTTs or fantasy IPs like WoW) an advantage, and done a disservice to a substantial portion of its fans.


----------



## Thorin Stoutfoot (Sep 26, 2007)

CharlesRyan said:
			
		

> To be clear, my claim is that when the basic consumer unit is the playing group, not the individual player, the number of basic consumer units affected by Mac exclusion rises from "negligible" to substantial.




That might be true, but let me assure you, this is but one of many reasons why after my current Mac dies, I'm replacing it with a PC. It's too annoying to deal with software incompatibilities with the rest of the world all the time. Buy a Garmin GPS? Oops. No Mac support. Share a printer with your brother? Oops, windows drivers only. Want to run the latest games? Oops, no Mac support. I think long time Mac users are so used to this that they're inured to this.

Us recent cross-over users, however, are definitely not used to it and I have definitely dissuaded my fellow coworkers from buying or using Macs because of this issue. In any case, if I ever get into virtual gaming, rest assured that if D&D was that important to me, scavenging an old PC to run this application is no big deal.

Mac users might buy their computers and then look for applications to run on it, but the rest of us still look at applications first, and then buy computers to run them.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Sep 26, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> WOTC can say whatever it wants publicly, but, at the end of the day, it's going to be new groups that drive the VTT, not disbanded groups from ten years ago.  If those groups wanted to play together, there is absolutely nothing stopping them from doing so right now.  The existence of the DDI does nothing to change that.




Oddly enough, I've got one group of friends in Chicago that would want to reintegrate me into the game and another with members here that we've talked about the possibility of playing with the DDI.  Then there's the possibility of reuniting two groups that I've played with only a few times.  In each case it's been the geographical separation that is keeping us apart.

I've got some experience using other virtual tables, but they were so difficult to use that the groups gave up.


----------



## cthulhu_duck (Sep 26, 2007)

CharlesRyan said:
			
		

> To be clear, my claim is that when the basic consumer unit is the playing group, not the individual player, the number of basic consumer units affected by Mac exclusion rises from "negligible" to substantial.




There's also examples like me.  As mentioned before - in my group I seem to be the most interested in 4E, and I'm a Mac user.

If my face-to-face group goes ahead with the idea that's being mooted of skipping an edition - then if I wanted to play 4E one obvious way would be the DDI.  I could buy the books, get myself a subscription and find a DDI group to play with.

But I can't.  Not unless I want to outlay for not only the DDI and 4E, but also a new Mac (in advance of my planned replacement in 2009-2010) that can run one of the newer Windows emulation options.


----------



## The Little Raven (Sep 26, 2007)

They probably looked at the amount of time and additional resources it would require to incorporate Mac support into the DDI VTT, then decided that cost was not worth adding support for less than 10% of the computer market.

I have friends on Macs, so I know how much this sucks for them, but any suggestion that it is doomed to failure because 9% of the market can't use it is just silly. Many software and game companies don't provide Mac support, yet they are still in the upper echelons of the industry.


----------



## The Little Raven (Sep 26, 2007)

akaddk said:
			
		

> I think one of the most significant things about the multitude of threads like this that have pages and pages of responses is that there are multitudes of threads like this with pages and pages of responses.
> 
> That pretty much says it all, I think.




Multitude of threads? I see one here, and maybe a handful of others on a handful of sites. That hardly constitutes a multitude.

And pages and pages or responses? Sure... I guess 6 pages of responses might appear significant, until you note that many of them are by the same people again and again, or note that threads about demons and devils and the change to Forgotten Realms garners more response than this.

And that's completely ignoring the >10% market share that Macs encompass.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Sep 26, 2007)

CharlesRyan said:
			
		

> Clustering is a hypothesis,




No, it's probability.


----------



## akaddk (Sep 27, 2007)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Multitude of threads? I see one here, and maybe a handful of others on a handful of sites. That hardly constitutes a multitude.
> 
> And pages and pages or responses? Sure... I guess 6 pages of responses might appear significant, until you note that many of them are by the same people again and again, or note that threads about demons and devils and the change to Forgotten Realms garners more response than this.
> 
> And that's completely ignoring the >10% market share that Macs encompass.



I'm not going to address any of these arguments because I know my statements are solid and don't need defending.

Instead, I'm going to ask why people like you are so adament to put down the Mac and people who use them? What interest do you have in us not getting a program that works for us? If you're not a Mac-user, why come to this thread and dump in it?

I just don't get that kind of reasoning. And I only ever seem to see it from PC people. There are plenty of Mac-only programs where I see PC people cry foul and yet, I never see Mac-users come into those threads and say, "Yeah, well, PC's suck so you don't deserve our software."


----------



## Nifft (Sep 27, 2007)

akaddk said:
			
		

> The only thing I'm confused about is your need to pick apart a very simple sentence and correct it to the nth degree when all it really is, is a matter of semantics.



 Yes, "free" vs. "not free" is a very subtle point, and I'm a jackass for distinguishing between them. Oh, the shame.



			
				akaddk said:
			
		

> Wait. I forgot. This is teh intarweb. My bad.



 Indeed.

Ciao, -- N


----------



## The Little Raven (Sep 27, 2007)

akaddk said:
			
		

> Instead, I'm going to ask why people like you are so adament to put down the Mac and people who use them?




Uhhh... what? I was pointing out the numbers behind why WotC isn't doing Mac support. How is that insulting the Mac or the people who use them? You're a small part of the computer market. Deal with it.



> What interest do you have in us not getting a program that works for us?




I have no interest in the Mac having no support. In fact, I have a greater interest in the Mac actually having support, since I have friends who use Macs.



> If you're not a Mac-user, why come to this thread and dump in it?




Can't deal with Apple being called less than 10% of the computer market, like they are?



> I just don't get that kind of reasoning. And I only ever seem to see it from PC people. There are plenty of Mac-only programs where I see PC people cry foul and yet, I never see Mac-users come into those threads and say, "Yeah, well, PC's suck so you don't deserve our software."




Take a valium or smoke a bonghit or something, man. Just calm down and actually read my post and point out where I say that Macs suck or that Mac users don't deserve software.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 27, 2007)

akaddk said:
			
		

> Not everyone is a computer guru.
> 
> In fact, many people choose the Mac because you don't HAVE to be a a computer whiz to get the most out of a tool.
> 
> ...




I suggest you take a look at OpenRPG again.  Besides downloading and installing three programs, there are no problems.  I have zero knowledge of Python and have been using OpenRPG problem free for years.  I don't know what version you tried, but the latest is stable, and works.  About the only problem I see currently is if someone is behind a firewall, and that will always be a problem for any sort of VTT.

And, considering something like Fantasy grounds is what, 30 bucks for a full subscription, it's not like it's that much more expensive than the DDI VTT which costs you 120 bucks a year.  (with admittedly, lots of bonuses.)


----------



## Hussar (Sep 27, 2007)

CharlesRyan said:
			
		

> To be clear, my claim is that when the basic consumer unit is the playing group, not the individual player, the number of basic consumer units affected by Mac exclusion rises from "negligible" to substantial.
> 
> DDI may still be quite successful, despite one of its key features lacking value for a substantial number of D&D consumers. But WotC will have left a lot of money on the table, given their competitors (3rd-party VTTs or fantasy IPs like WoW) an advantage, and done a disservice to a substantial portion of its fans.




I agree that Mac versions should have been included.  I would guess that the expense of including Mac support simply didn't outweigh the possible gains.  Not having any access to marketing numbers, I wouldn't know either way.

But, while the basic unit is the group, your assumption there is that existing groups are the target market.  I disagree with that.  Existing groups already do not take advantage of what's out there, so, I find it difficult to think that they are suddenly going to take advantage of this.  Despite what some are saying, programs like MapTool, OpenRPG, and Fantasy Grounds are not difficult to install or maintain.  And, in the case of OpenRPG, come linked to the Hypertext SRD meaning that it already does a lot of the rules lookup for you.  Minis are created by yourself, so, they look EXACTLY like what you want them to look.

Sorry, digressing.

I look at it this way.  The RPGA has 100 000 members.  If they can take 10% of that and turn them on to the VTT, they win.  That's 10 000 users, nearly 2000 groups.  That's 10 (ish) games starting every hour of every day, seven days a week.  That's a HUGE draw for other gamers.

IME with OpenRPG, I can post on the OpenRPG forums for a new game and within 10 days have 6 new players ready to go.  And that's with the miniscule numbers that OpenRPG attracts.  With the kinds of numbers WOTC can bring, you will be able to start a new game, or join and existing game any time of the day.  That's where the VTT will be a success.

Does it suck for Mac users that can't cross platform?  Yup.  It does.  And I hope that support is coming soon.  But, really, the small numbers, even only 10% of possible users by your numbers, isn't enough to make it worth it out of the gate.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 27, 2007)

akaddk said:
			
		

> The above makes you either one of two types of people: a) you don't realize that a sentence taken out of the context of the entire post can be taken to mean something entirely different from what the poster intended, or b) you do realize this and you're manipulating the argument to be divisive.
> 
> So either you just don't get it or you just don't care.



You said that people choose the mac because they don't need to be a computer whiz to use it.  I pointed out using an ironic example that that's not a good reason to choose the mac, because you don't have to be a computer whiz to use a Windows box (or even a Linux box these days, thanks to things like Ubuntu).  In fact, you don't have to be a computer whiz so much that my mother, who can't operate her television remote, can use it just fine.  If, however, we're going to take it as _definitive_ of non-mac systems that you need to be a computer whiz to use them--which is exactly what you suggest above, else there would be no reason for a non-computer whiz to choose a mac on that basis--then my mother is one, and we've just lowered the bar for what it takes to be a computer whiz to a trivial level.

I'm not taking anything out of context or manipulating anything.  Your point is spurious.



> It has been stated that what you are paying for with a DDI subscription is the additional content of Dragon & Dungeon and that the VTT is a free component.



So, you're saying it's free once you've paid for it?  You should be in marketing.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 27, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> IME with OpenRPG, I can post on the OpenRPG forums for a new game and within 10 days have 6 new players ready to go.  And that's with the miniscule numbers that OpenRPG attracts.  With the kinds of numbers WOTC can bring, you will be able to start a new game, or join and existing game any time of the day.  That's where the VTT will be a success.



I had a great experience with OpenRPG playing Arcana Unearthed a few years back.  However, I just don't think I like playing on a VTT.  Of course, we weren't using voice chat, which may have made a huge difference.  Play in text-only mode is slow.  Maybe next time I get the urge to look for an online game I'll check the OpenRPG forums for people using Skype or something.

Again, I know more about pythons than I do about Python.  It's easy to get up and running as long as you are able to read, and it's easy to use in play.  I particularly liked setting up dice macros for my full attack actions.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Sep 27, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I would guess that the expense of including Mac support simply didn't outweigh the possible gains.




Sure. My point is that WotC has miscalculated the "possible gains" by confusing the individual with the gaming group as the basic consumer unit.


----------



## Eridanis (Sep 27, 2007)

Mourn - Please don't keep up that tone of voice in this discussion.


----------



## WizarDru (Sep 27, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Yes, "free" vs. "not free" is a very subtle point, and I'm a jackass for distinguishing between them. Oh, the shame.




But they call it a "free" market economy, don't they?  MIRITE?   

...

I need coffee.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 27, 2007)

CharlesRyan said:
			
		

> Sure. My point is that WotC has miscalculated the "possible gains" by confusing the individual with the gaming group as the basic consumer unit.



Or they did use the gaming group, it provided insufficient gains, and we'll never know either way until someone leaks the market research so we can see what assumptions they used.


----------



## RFisher (Sep 27, 2007)

Thorin Stoutfoot said:
			
		

> It's too annoying to deal with software incompatibilities with the rest of the world all the time. Buy a Garmin GPS? Oops. No Mac support. Share a printer with your brother? Oops, windows drivers only. Want to run the latest games? Oops, no Mac support. I think long time Mac users are so used to this that they're inured to this.




() Your experience is _so_ different from mine. I'm using the same monitor, (Microsoft) mouse, printer, scanner, & bunches of software on my Macs that I used with Windows before. The world is _so_ much different since I've come back to Mac then it was when I left. Switching back to Mac hasn't caused me any significant headaches.



			
				akaddk said:
			
		

> Instead, I'm going to ask why people like you are so adament to put down the Mac and people who use them?




Oh, that's easy. Because of the militant evangelists. Perhaps the Mac would've never had as much success without them encouraging that, but I was never comfortable with it. It naturally creates an equally strong opposition.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 30, 2007)

CharlesRyan said:
			
		

> Sure. My point is that WotC has miscalculated the "possible gains" by confusing the individual with the gaming group as the basic consumer unit.




But, you're assuming that "gaming group" is an already fixed unit.  That the DM and X players come as a package deal.

And, to some degree you're probably right.  There will be some gravitation towards the DI for pre-existing groups.  

My point is that their numbers are small enough to be ignored.  It's going to be the new groups, the gamers who want to play but can't due to any number of reasons, that are going to drive the VTT.

And I say that because that's pretty much entirely what drives VTT programs now.  Yes, some groups come to VTT play preformed, but, judging by the number of new campaigns that get launched with a first come, first serve membership, it's likely they're a very small minority.


----------



## w_earle_wheeler (Sep 30, 2007)

Here's a funny little story...

I had been prepared to ignore the DI outright, and the virtual tabletop as well. I always prefer to play with local groups. The social aspect is part of the appeal of the game.

Well, I met some people at Dragon*Con who I wanted to start running games for. They live far away. I thought about the virtual tabletop, and I was about to mention it to them as an option...

_... when I suddenly remembered that one of them uses a Mac._

So, that's the story about how I almost decided to jump on board with the DI, and then jumped back off.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 30, 2007)

w_earle_wheeler said:
			
		

> Here's a funny little story...
> 
> I had been prepared to ignore the DI outright, and the virtual tabletop as well. I always prefer to play with local groups. The social aspect is part of the appeal of the game.
> 
> ...




While all these anecdotes are enlightening and all, I'm wondering if you then brought up any of the dozen or so programs that you COULD use to play with all of these people?


----------



## w_earle_wheeler (Sep 30, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> While all these anecdotes are enlightening and all, I'm wondering if you then brought up any of the dozen or so programs that you COULD use to play with all of these people?




The point is that we won't be using the DI/VTT, not that we won't be using a different product that has cross-platform capability.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Oct 1, 2007)

Would you like to pop over to my poll thread, and indicate the proportion of windows (VTT capable) machines there are in your gaming group?

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?p=3804221

Thanks


----------



## Hussar (Oct 1, 2007)

The problem, as I stated Plane Sailing, isn't that Charles Ryan's wrong.  He's not.  Existing groups will have problems with this and probably in fairly significant numbers.

It's just that existing groups don't matter.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Oct 1, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> The problem, as I stated Plane Sailing, isn't that Charles Ryan's wrong.  He's not.  Existing groups will have problems with this and probably in fairly significant numbers.
> 
> It's just that existing groups don't matter.




Oh, I'm not proposing any kind of 'answer' in the poll, it is just that the question arising made me curious about the kind of distribution in the small sample that we have here on ENworld.

I'm also thinking about whether the VTT is expected to be only a model where *all* people log on via computers, or (and this would be interesting), whether a group might have a monitor up on the table displaying what they see etc and one or two people are playing remotely while the rest of the group are playing locally.

- If it were practical, this would be a much more common situation for our gaming group for instance.

I'm not sure why you assert that existing groups don't matter though... I can't imagine a business not making some attempt to include the existing installed base.

Cheers


----------



## Hussar (Oct 1, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Oh, I'm not proposing any kind of 'answer' in the poll, it is just that the question arising made me curious about the kind of distribution in the small sample that we have here on ENworld.
> 
> I'm also thinking about whether the VTT is expected to be only a model where *all* people log on via computers, or (and this would be interesting), whether a group might have a monitor up on the table displaying what they see etc and one or two people are playing remotely while the rest of the group are playing locally.
> 
> ...




Existing groups don't matter that much for the precise reason that they already exist.  If that makes sense.  Existing groups already have a means of playing together - be it face to face or another VTT.  Sure, that might change for this or that group, but, that's hardly the demographic I'd be aiming for.

In other words, existing groups don't need the DI VTT for the simple fact that to exist they must already have some means with which to play.

Now, using the VTT with a projector or a computer with two screens would be an excellent way for tabletop gamers to use the VTT.  But, that negates Charles Ryan's complaint about one mac user in a group since, well, unless the entire group is Mac users, then they can simply use someone's PC for the project.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Oct 1, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Existing groups don't matter that much for the precise reason that they already exist.  If that makes sense.  Existing groups already have a means of playing together - be it face to face or another VTT.  Sure, that might change for this or that group, but, that's hardly the demographic I'd be aiming for.




I could imagine trying to get existing VTT users to use my sparkly new VTT rather than the old one they were using though


----------



## CharlesRyan (Oct 1, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Existing groups don't matter that much for the precise reason that they already exist.  [. . .]  Existing groups already have a means of playing together.





Hussar, I think you're right in saying that WotC has a great potential pool of new consumers, and that the VTT will encourage many lapsed or semi-lapsed consumers to come back into the fold by offering them a new way to find gaming groups.

But consider a few points:


First, they can only engage players in the VTT if they are already subscribers to DDI. How many people who are not currently playing will pony up for DDI simply on the hopes of assembling a group online? Some, for sure, but not so many that this demographic represents DDI's future in the short-to-mid term.
Secondly, I offer this counterpoint: I _already_ belong to at least two existing groups that can't get together due to distances and/or lifestyle. Because one or more of the members of these groups use Macs, we will not be able to get together via DDI, either. I posit that these two gaming groups _do_ matter, in that they represent a dozen potential subscribers to DDI and a dozen players who may drift away from D&D without an ability to reconstitute their groups. I doubt that most of these players (even the PC users, who at least have the option) are keen to start shopping for a new group from scratch, but I _know_ that they're keen to play with their friends.
Thirdly, the issue I addressed in the point above _has been explicitely cited_ by WotC as one of the advantages of DDI.

You are correct: Gamers forming new groups will be an important part of DDI's success, especially in the long term as this new paradigm becomes commonly understood and accepted.

But I still hold that WotC is leaving a lot of money on the table--and a lot of their key consumers out in the cold--by miscalculating the magnitude of groups affected by the PC-only decision.


----------



## HatWearingFool (Oct 5, 2007)

> The DailyPrincetonian reports on a growing trend amongst at least some universities.
> 
> The Princeton University newspaper reports that Princeton's Mac marketshare has been rising dramatically, with 40 percent of students and faculty currently using a Mac as their personal computer. This number is up from only 10% of Mac users on campus only 4 years ago. And this number could still be growing. This year, the University's Student Computer Initiative reportedly sold more Macs than PC's, with 60 percent of students choosing a Mac, up from 45 percent just last year. Students were offered a choice of Dell, IBM and Apple computers.
> 
> ...




From here : macrumors

So like I said earlier in this thread I really think WOTC is missing the boat with what should be one of their target audiences (post secondary students).

Also a personal ancedote. I'm currently using bootcamp to run Fantasy Grounds on my mac. I've been unable to get it to run through virtualization. I really underestimated how annoying it would be to us bootcamp. I mean bootcamp works great but while I'm using it I can't do very much since my entire computer experience is centered on OS X. So basically I have to stop downloads, music playing, instant messaging, dvd creation, software backup, and other stuff while I'm playing. It wasn't bad at first but it keeps getting more annoying as time goes on. I'm seriously considering trying to convince my group to move to a cross-platform VTT.


----------



## Castellan (Oct 5, 2007)

HatWearingFool said:
			
		

> Also a personal ancedote. I'm currently using bootcamp to run Fantasy Grounds on my mac. I've been unable to get it to run through virtualization. I really underestimated how annoying it would be to us bootcamp. I mean bootcamp works great but while I'm using it I can't do very much since my entire computer experience is centered on OS X. So basically I have to stop downloads, music playing, instant messaging, dvd creation, software backup, and other stuff while I'm playing. It wasn't bad at first but it keeps getting more annoying as time goes on. I'm seriously considering trying to convince my group to move to a cross-platform VTT.




I'm of a similar mind. I'm a DBA at an all-Windows company by day. By night, I use my Intel Mac for all kinds of productivity side-jobs. I've developed software for Macs, Windows, and Linux. I've worked on everything from little in-house me-only projects to software used by NASA.

I use BootCamp for gaming, Windows XP in Parallels for work VPN and other little apps that are necessary while still having access to the Mac, and the Mac for everything that I can use it for (which, honestly, is really just about anything anymore -- I don't really need Parallels for the VPN so much anymore).

I love my video games, but rebooting into Windows is a hassle, and there are still many things that don't work via virtualization.

My experience with companies that put out software for Windows only (especially anything internet-based) is that their developers are limited in ability and the software is usually very poorly executed. Video games sometimes escape this problem, but not all. And as a relevant point, consider eTools, which frankly was a steaming pile.

I'm pretty concerned about DI. It's got a lot of potential, but I don't have high expectations for it.


----------



## hazel monday (Oct 5, 2007)

I'm the only member of my group that exclusively uses a mac.
But, I'm also the only member of my group with the ability & desire to DM a campaign.
So, no DI for my D&D group.
Not that I would have payed a monthly fee for what  I consider to be a sub standard product.
But still... it's the thought that counts.


----------



## HatWearingFool (Oct 5, 2007)

I've thought a bit more about my frustrations with bootcamp and I have few more things I would like to share.

A big problem with using bootcamp or parallels (or other virtual machines) is that the software you are using isn't designed for your hardware. It's pretty obvious that fantasy grounds was designed from the ground up areound the concept of a 2 button mouse. And although I use 2 finger clicking on my macbook in mac os x, it doesn't seem to work well under windows. 

Also the mouse drivers seem a little wonky which isn't a lot of fun when you go to "throw" the dice.  I usually end up attempting to throw the dice 2 or 3 times.

Another problem I have is for some reason the appostraphe (sp?) key doesn't seem to work. This is a small detail (and maybe I just have to setup a different keyboard), but it since it takes extra thought to do it I notice I type less than others. Thankfully this is mitigated by our use of Voice software otherwise this would be a much bigger deal.

I've also noticed that it's tougher for me to do little maintaince items in between sessions. By this I mean leveling up my character and adding rule sets. The reason for this is that I can't just open up the program in a spare 10 minutes and make the changes since I have to shutdown and reboot my computer. And although this only adds a bit of time it also means that I have to stop everything else that my machine is doing.

I know that this stuff sounds small but added up with what I stated before it's pretty annorying and detracts from my fun.

Also I'd like to add that if I didn't get free Windows licenses from my employeer I wouldn't bother with either bootcamp or vmware fusion.


----------



## Graf (Oct 16, 2007)

I am periodically amazed that right minded people continue to use Windows outside of a work context. (I mean, I'm basically a tech idiot and we still have a non-Windows household.)

I'm equally confused as to why Wizards isn't just developing a complete web-based program (What are they trying to do that's so complex it needs DirectX?). 
Built-in campaign Wiki, dice rolling, simple mapping, character generation with online database, and some sort of chat functionality and you'd be set.


----------



## JDJblatherings (Oct 16, 2007)

HatWearingFool said:
			
		

> I've thought a bit more about my frustrations with bootcamp and I have few more things I would like to share.
> 
> A big problem with using bootcamp or parallels (or other virtual machines) is that the software you are using isn't designed for your hardware. It's pretty obvious that fantasy grounds was designed from the ground up areound the concept of a 2 button mouse..




my Imac I got for home use has 4 buttons.


----------



## Griogre (Oct 17, 2007)

Fantasy Grounds was actually designed for a *three* button mouse.    The scroll wheel is very important in some places.

However other than that, I believe you have put your finger on the trouble with any vitual sandbox.  Ultimately, they are almost never quite up to date on the latest hardware and usually have to use dated drivers or they can't take advantage of the latest and greatest drivers/hardware. They do seem to work quite well if you don't need bleeding edge hardware/software features.


----------



## vongarr (Oct 17, 2007)

I'm coming to this late, but here goes...

We all might be experts in our own way. Problem is, the only expert opinion that matters is the one who came up with this policy at wotc. I seriously doubt it was an off cuff decision. Perhaps in the old days of TSR, but not in the new days of corporate accountability. 

But here I am with my own opinion. I'm probably wrong. Perhaps the lead dev is a true blue Microsoft fanboy? Hate's macs as much as I do, even. Someone should make a petition. Maybe one of you programmers should make a "Get the DI on Mac's!" kind of page.  Look at what the browncoats did for Firefly.


----------



## Kesh (Oct 17, 2007)

Graf said:
			
		

> I'm equally confused as to why Wizards isn't just developing a complete web-based program (What are they trying to do that's so complex it needs DirectX?).




The 3D character design and online adventuring bit, apparently. Neat, but I could do without it if I got mac/linux support.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Oct 17, 2007)

Kesh said:
			
		

> The 3D character design and online adventuring bit, apparently.



And even that could've been done with a cross-platform alternative (e.g. OpenGL).


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Oct 17, 2007)

Griogre said:
			
		

> Fantasy Grounds was actually designed for a *three* button mouse.    The scroll wheel is very important in some places.



 Fortunately the Apple mouse I have, and which is I believe now the standard mouse with all Macs, has two button capability (although it still only has one button, it just knows which side you are clicking on) and a scroll ball that allows side to side scrolling as well as up and down (useful on large maps or picture files).


----------



## JVisgaitis (Oct 17, 2007)

Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> Fortunately the Apple mouse I have, and which is I believe now the standard mouse with all Macs, has two button capability (although it still only has one button, it just knows which side you are clicking on) and a scroll ball that allows side to side scrolling as well as up and down (useful on large maps or picture files).




You actually have four buttons. The scroll ball is a button, left and right sides of the mouse, and if you squeeze the mouse it activates another function. By default, all of these options are turned off except for scrolling IIRC. Look in the system preferences under mouse.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Oct 17, 2007)

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> You actually have four buttons. The scroll ball is a button, left and right sides of the mouse, and if you squeeze the mouse it activates another function. By default, all of these options are turned off except for scrolling IIRC. Look in the system preferences under mouse.



 I know, but I found the side squeeze buttons hard to use, and I haven't found a real need for it.


----------



## epochrpg (Oct 17, 2007)

Haven't any of the mac user advocates here heard of Parallels?  It COMES with new macs-- and is a really good Windows XP emulator that can be used to run PC games, aps, etc on a mac.  

Now if these DDI aps require Windows VISTA, then they are asking for WAR from both PC users who refuse to buy it and MAC users who cannot emulate it.


----------



## The Little Raven (Oct 17, 2007)

epochrpg said:
			
		

> Now if these DDI aps require Windows VISTA, then they are asking for WAR from both PC users who refuse to buy it and MAC users who cannot emulate it.




Agreed. Vista-only will guarantee it to fail.


----------



## cthulhu_duck (Oct 17, 2007)

epochrpg said:
			
		

> Haven't any of the mac user advocates here heard of Parallels?  It COMES with new macs




No it doesn't (not as part of the standard software installed by Apple).  And it doesn't help those of us with an older Mac that can't run Parallels or VMWare.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Oct 17, 2007)

I think they said that, at release, DDI will not be compatable for MAC.  So, since there is a smaller number of MAC-only users out there, what makes more sense?  Release DDI early so that the majority of (PC) users can use it OR not release it at all until everyone (MAC & PC users) can use it all at the same time?

Of course, then you'll have the people that wine that their 486 computer can't run it, and it's not fair to them....  wahhhhh


----------



## Nifft (Oct 17, 2007)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> I think they said that, at release, DDI will not be compatable for MAC.  So, since there is a smaller number of MAC-only users out there, what makes more sense?



 If it were equally hard to add platforms than it is to include them from the beginning, you might have a point.

But it's really not.

Porting finished software to a new platform is *very hard*. Building a system that works cross platform is much, much easier.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Oct 17, 2007)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> I think they said that, at release, DDI will not be compatable for MAC.  So, since there is a smaller number of MAC-only users out there, what makes more sense?  Release DDI early so that the majority of (PC) users can use it OR not release it at all until everyone (MAC & PC users) can use it all at the same time?
> 
> Of course, then you'll have the people that wine that their 486 computer can't run it, and it's not fair to them....  wahhhhh



 The problem many Mac users have is that they have chosen a path that is not easy for making it Mac compatible at a later date.  The result is that we fear they never will find it to be worth the trouble to do it.  Had they chosen something that can be converted without the same level of effort, I think there would be less concern about them getting to it later.  I know that's how I've been feeling.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Oct 17, 2007)

epochrpg said:
			
		

> Haven't any of the mac user advocates here heard of Parallels?  It COMES with new macs-- and is a really good Windows XP emulator that can be used to run PC games, aps, etc on a mac.



What are you talking about? Parallels does not come with new macs. *shakes head*

And even then Parallels doesn't not come with Windows of any version.

And for those Mac users who don't have Intel processors, like the 64 bit G5's, can't use virtualization (not emulation) software. Virtual PC (emulation software) was cancelled.


----------



## epochrpg (Oct 18, 2007)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> What are you talking about? Parallels does not come with new macs. *shakes head*
> 
> And even then Parallels doesn't not come with Windows of any version.
> 
> And for those Mac users who don't have Intel processors, like the 64 bit G5's, can't use virtualization (not emulation) software. Virtual PC (emulation software) was cancelled.




I just bought my dad an ibook 2 months ago.  The apple store installed his old PC desktop & parallels right on the computer for free.  With 1 button click, my dad can switch to his windows xp and play Civ 4 on his mac.  With a single keystroke, he switches back to the Mac OS X desktop.

But, I suppose I don't know what I'm talking about...


----------



## cthulhu_duck (Oct 18, 2007)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> Virtual PC (emulation software) was cancelled.



Hm?  I thought Virtual PC for Mac was still available?



			
				epochrpg said:
			
		

> I just bought my dad an ibook 2 months ago.



Apple haven't made iBooks for some time...



			
				epochrpg said:
			
		

> The apple store installed his old PC desktop & parallels right on the computer for free.



I hope he got a license for Windows along with the rest of the documentation then?  When you say 'Apple Store' do you mean an Apple Inc store or a third party?



			
				epochrpg said:
			
		

> With 1 button click, my dad can switch to his windows xp and play Civ 4 on his mac.



Given that there's a Mac version of Civ 4, this seems like a waste of time.


----------



## Imp (Oct 18, 2007)

We still haven't got Beyond the Sword, though.

* pouts, kicks pebble *


----------



## RFisher (Oct 18, 2007)

vongarr said:
			
		

> We all might be experts in our own way. Problem is, the only expert opinion that matters is the one who came up with this policy at wotc. I seriously doubt it was an off cuff decision. Perhaps in the old days of TSR, but not in the new days of corporate accountability.




Corporate accountability: There's the crux of the matter. "Nobody ever got fired for choosing Microsoft." Although I suspect that's not 100% true, it's true enough to still result in lots of bad decisions.

In my experience, companies like Wizards heavily defer such decisions to whatever development house they're working with, & too many development houses make decisions based solely on their limited understanding of conventional wisdom without the least due diligence.

& I say this as an optimist who usually expects people will do the best job they can at whatever they're doing. Experience eventually taught me otherwise in this case.


----------



## Nifft (Oct 18, 2007)

Imp said:
			
		

> We still haven't got Beyond the Sword, though.
> 
> * pouts, kicks pebble *



 I must say, Civ IV is pretty much worth a dedicated computer.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Oct 18, 2007)

epochrpg said:
			
		

> I just bought my dad an ibook 2 months ago.  The apple store installed his old PC desktop & parallels right on the computer for free.  With 1 button click, my dad can switch to his windows xp and play Civ 4 on his mac.  With a single keystroke, he switches back to the Mac OS X desktop.



That doesn't mean it comes with Macs free. If the Apple Store installed in for free (I doubt, since they usually only do such setup as part of ProCare or One to One) that doesn't mean they sold it to you for free or that all macs come with it. Did you buy ProCare or One to One? If so, as part of buying either ProCare or One to One ($99 each) they will do a complete setup that includes transferring a PC desktop over to the virtual environment. But it still wasn't for free.

Boot Camp is free. Apple created that and it is in beta right now. Leopard will include Boot Camp for all Intel Macs.

Was the software for free? I don't know if there was some short term discount that included a rebate that was equal to the cost of the program. Maybe. But that doesn't change that all Macs don't come with that 3rd party app for free.

Installing it for free and giving it to you for free are different things.

I know what Parallels does.

Are you sure it was The Apple Store, or was it another company that sells Apple computers?







			
				epochrpg said:
			
		

> But, I suppose I don't know what I'm talking about...



Seeing iBooks were discontinued a long time ago (2005), didn't come with an Intel processor making it impossible to run Parallels or Boot Camp, I'll take your admission.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Oct 18, 2007)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> I think they said that, at release, DDI will not be compatable for MAC.  So, since there is a smaller number of MAC-only users out there, what makes more sense?  Release DDI early so that the majority of (PC) users can use it OR not release it at all until everyone (MAC & PC users) can use it all at the same time?
> 
> Of course, then you'll have the people that wine that their 486 computer can't run it, and it's not fair to them....  wahhhhh




I refer you to the original post. The issue isn't that Mac users individually represent 5% or 10% of the marketplace. It's that _gaming groups that include Mac users_ might represent 30% or 50% of the marketplace.

In that context, I think it certainly makes sense to release DDI on whatever timetable allows you to get it to the vast majority of your consumer base without alienating any of your gaming groups or encouraging groups with Mac users from leaving their friends behind. If that means it takes a little longer, so be it. Of course, if WotC had done this math right from the very beginning, I don't think there's any reason it would have taken any longer.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Oct 18, 2007)

epochrpg said:
			
		

> Haven't any of the mac user advocates here heard of Parallels?  It COMES with new macs-- and is a really good Windows XP emulator that can be used to run PC games, aps, etc on a mac.




Yeah, I've heard of it. I have a G5 and I can't run emulation on that. I plan on upgrading to an Intel for my home machine, but not for another year or so. Even so, its crazy to think that I have to buy a new computer to use the Virtual Tabletop.

Back to Charles point, as a publisher I've meet a lot of friends across the country that I would love to game with. A lot of those friends are talking about getting games together using the Virtual Tabletop. Unfortunately, I'm hung high and dry when it comes to that for obvious reasons and so is the rest of my company as we all use Mac.


----------



## Aeolius (Oct 18, 2007)

I just noticed that the formatting tools for the Gleemax blogs do not show up on a Mac browsing with Safari or IE... only in Firefox.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Oct 18, 2007)

Aeolius said:
			
		

> I just noticed that the formatting tools for the Gleemax blogs do not show up on a Mac browsing with Safari or IE... only in Firefox.




IE hasn't been updated on the Mac in over 5 years. You should never use that browser. The fact that the formatting options aren't working isn't a problem with being on a Mac, but a problem with the Safari browser. Partly the reason why I switched to Firefox.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Oct 18, 2007)

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> Even so, its crazy to think that I have to buy a new computer to use the Virtual Tabletop.



A new computer, AND virtualization software, AND a copy of Windows.


----------



## Remus Lupin (Oct 18, 2007)

I'm planning on buying a new, intel-based, Mac in the next few months, and I'm going to get it pre-installed with Windows. This was a late decision on my part, largely because of the large number of video games that I have from my Windows days that I can't play. Nevertheless, if WOTC is counting on people to do this, I think they may be sorely disappointed. However, there's little about DDI that attracts me except the character generator in any event.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Oct 18, 2007)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> A new computer, AND virtualization software, AND a copy of Windows.




Well if I buy a new Mac it would have Leopard and Bootcamp which takes care of the virtualization software and I actually have a copy of Windows XP Pro from my gf's PC.


----------

