# I seem to be missing the point on the online CB



## No Name (Nov 2, 2010)

How is this change going to make things better for me?

The way our group is setup now isn't going to change. Two of us in the gaming group are subscribers, although that may change. And only the two of us own any books or minis. The rest of the group will now store their characters on one or both of our accounts. And they still won't subscribe. So there's no real difference there. Other than needing internet. So it's a little more restrictive. Not good for me, I'm not a fan of "restrictive."

Unless Wizards goes to a "must subscribe to play" model (Dungeons of Dragoncraft), they won't get any more cash from us (and they definately won't get it then). Seeing how only one player needs to be a subscriber for everyone to access the CB, I'm tempted to cancel. Dungeon and Dragon are drying up. I don't like the online CB move. I can't store my characters offline (they're working on that - it will be available "soon" ).

Honestly, I don't mind $6 a month for an offline CB and MB. I would keep subscribing just for that. I like good magazines, but I could live without them. And I'd still pay $6 a month for the offline apps. I've been a subscriber since the beginning. Only one time did I use one of the five CB installs on a computer that wasn't mine. Only once.

I guess the point is WotC thinks this move will net them more cash. It's not about making the game more enjoyable for me.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 2, 2010)

Dude, just think of how much hard drive space you're going to be saving now that your character is in the cloud!

Where's the vomit smiley?


----------



## Sunseeker (Nov 2, 2010)

No Name said:


> I guess the point is WotC thinks this move will net them more cash. It's not about making the game more enjoyable for me.




What part of WotC being a corporation, selling endless amounts of new and expensive books, minis, card-games, tools, and accessories, what part of them making an online for-pay service, made you think at any moment that their end goal was NOT the money?

If they truly wanted everyone to have 'fun' they'd give their product away.  

Obviously they're not doing that so while 'fun' may be a high priority, a strong goal, the money is and always will be the real drive for them.  Forgetting that leads to the attitude many people have demonstrated here of "but why doesn't Wizards just want ME to have more fun???"


----------



## WolfOwl77 (Nov 2, 2010)

Could be it's to combat hacker theft of the CB client?, but I could be wrong.

Never quite understood why this was attached to the online subscription anyway.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 2, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> Dude, just think of how much hard drive space you're going to be saving now that your character is in the cloud!




That's like telling someone they're going to spoil their appetite if they have a tic-tac.

My iMac shipped with something like 1 or 2 terabytes, and I just bought a similar sized backup for a couple hundred bucks- an NPC would take up what percentage of that, really?

...or did I miss your sarcasm?


----------



## thewok (Nov 2, 2010)

WolfOwl77 said:


> Never quite understood why this was attached to the online subscription anyway.



The idea is that if you want the data, you buy the books.  OR, you play a subscription to have access to it.  Until now, you paid for a month and got all previous data in the character builder to keep forever.  People were getting 2 years worth of content for $10.  And they might drop another Hamilton to update again in six months or a year.

Great deal for those people, but hardly fair to Wizards.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 2, 2010)

thewok said:


> The idea is that if you want the data, you buy the books.  OR, you play a subscription to have access to it.  Until now, you paid for a month and got all previous data in the character builder to keep forever.  People were getting 2 years worth of content for $10.  And they might drop another Hamilton to update again in six months or a year.
> 
> Great deal for those people, but hardly fair to Wizards.




And what about those people that have been year long subscribers from the start?

What type of 'fair' is that to WoTC?

Or how about when WoTC pulled the PDFs and didn't let DriveThruRPG allow people to continue to donwload them?

WoTC and 'fair' go back and forth quite a bit. They're not some innocent lass in the dragon's cave.


----------



## Sunseeker (Nov 2, 2010)

thewok said:


> Great deal for those people, but hardly fair to Wizards.




Thank you.  As "for the fans" as Wizards may be, it doesn't take a genius to know when you're getting screwed.


----------



## Katana_Geldar (Nov 2, 2010)

I'm not keeping my subscription, my net connection is notoriously unreliable. Just told my players and we have enough content anyway.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 2, 2010)

> JoeGKushner:
> yeah, it was a DC 10 check.




Oh- I rolled a _*FOUR!*_


----------



## No Name (Nov 2, 2010)

I wonder if they'll have a limit on the number of characters that an account can have stored in the cloud. Good way to keep those pesky non-subscribers away. If my account is full, I'd have to download one and then erase it from the cloud to make room for another.

I have some subscription time left, so I'll give it a look. But I'm really displeased with the way this has turned out. They may have just lost a customer.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Nov 3, 2010)

No Name said:


> I wonder if they'll have a limit on the number of characters that an account can have stored in the cloud. Good way to keep those pesky non-subscribers away. If my account is full, I'd have to download one and then erase it from the cloud to make room for another.




How big is a DDI character PDF anyway? And that is the largest the file can be. As data in a database, a character would be trivially small.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Nov 3, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> That's like telling someone they're going to spoil their appetite if they have a tic-tac.
> 
> My iMac shipped with something like 1 or 2 terabytes, and I just bought a similar sized backup for a couple hundred bucks- an NPC would take up what percentage of that, really?
> 
> ...or did I miss your sarcasm?




Is the iMac even able to run the "classic" character builder? In addition to the obvious benefit to WOTC in terms of anti-piracy and cutting down on "take a month, get what I need, repeat when I next need to update" subscriptions, it also makes it usable on some systems that couldn't before.

Of course, they could have done it on something that would actually work on mobile devices, and it does suck that it needs a connection since WiFi is still so unreliable.


----------



## malraux (Nov 3, 2010)

WalterKovacs said:


> Is the iMac even able to run the "classic" character builder? In addition to the obvious benefit to WOTC in terms of anti-piracy and cutting down on "take a month, get what I need, repeat when I next need to update" subscriptions, it also makes it usable on some systems that couldn't before.
> 
> Of course, they could have done it on something that would actually work on mobile devices, and it does suck that it needs a connection since WiFi is still so unreliable.




Yeah, macs as old as 4 years can run the regular character builder.  Anything with an intel chip inside can run windows.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Nov 3, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> And what about those people that have been year long subscribers from the start?



Well, at this point it is unknown whether or not WotC will refund any subscription money to those people who are paid up through some amount of time past Nov. 16th... but PaoloM's Q&A seemed to indicate that it's something you'd be able to take up with their Customer Service department.  So if you didn't want to pay for DDI if the CB was now web-only... there seems to be a chance you could get the rest of your money back for the time remaining.

If that happens... then problem solved.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 3, 2010)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Well, at this point it is unknown whether or not WotC will refund any subscription money to those people who are paid up through some amount of time past Nov. 16th... but PaoloM's Q&A seemed to indicate that it's something you'd be able to take up with their Customer Service department.  So if you didn't want to pay for DDI if the CB was now web-only... there seems to be a chance you could get the rest of your money back for the time remaining.
> 
> If that happens... then problem solved.




Not necessary for me. My problem with it was solved when I went to shut off the auto-renewal. My sub is expiring this month. As I've noted a few places I'll wait a few months, see if WoTC can keep THIS version updated and bug free before giving them another dime.


----------



## Katana_Geldar (Nov 3, 2010)

They gave the monthly people back their money when there was no September update.


----------



## darjr (Nov 3, 2010)

I wonder if I can get the balance of my yearly sub back?

Anybody know?


----------



## Piratecat (Nov 3, 2010)

darjr said:


> I wonder if I can get the balance of my yearly sub back?
> 
> Anybody know?



I'm sure you can. I'm waiting to see how good the new CB is, though. It's quite possible that it'll knock my socks off, in which case I'm happy to stay subscribed. Change is inherently scary, but it doesn't make much sense to sabre-rattle until you know what you're getting.

But seriously, guys. Silverlight?


----------



## darjr (Nov 3, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> I'm sure you can. I'm waiting to see how good the new CB is, though. It's quite possible that it'll knock my socks off, in which case I'm happy to stay subscribed. Change is inherently scary, but it doesn't make much sense to sabre-rattle until you know what you're getting.
> 
> But seriously, guys. Silverlight?




I hear you man. It's just for me it's amounting to a last straw. I was really excited about this news until I heard it. The more I hear the less I care. I've never done the '3 months and out' thing. I've had yearly subscriptions only, with my only lapse to test and see if I fell out of the DDI group on the WOTC boards. I just get less and less enthused by the moment. Maybe, for me, it was a long time coming and this is just the thing to get me to quit.


----------



## No Name (Nov 3, 2010)

Dice4Hire said:


> How big is a DDI character PDF anyway? And that is the largest the file can be. As data in a database, a character would be trivially small.



Size matters not.

A long, long, long time ago, I played EverQuest. We were limited to 8 characters per server. Those who paid a premium were allowed 10. When friends wanted to try out the game, it was easy enough log into a different server and let them have at it. But when a new race or class was added to the game, an old character had to go if you wanted to play something new on the same server with your friends.

Hopefully, WotC won't pull some nonsense like this. It just popped into my head when I was thinking about them storing my characters.

The CB sold me on the game, I don't want to go back to pencil and paper. Having everything from all the resources (books, Dragon, Dungeon, etc.) in one spot and with all the errata spoiled me. I tend to support the things I like. I was a yearly subscriber. I own most of the books and quite a few of the minis.

I can't imagine going back to pencil and paper and building a character with feats, powers, magic items, etc., from multiple sources. I have no problems with the math, its having a sword from AV2, armor from AV1, feats and powers from PHB1, MP1, MP2, HotFL, and Dragon - and then trying to reference this stuff when a question comes up. I love the CB, but I don't want the thing to be online only. So it's either restriced access to the CB, or restricting myself to a few sources when character building the old school way.

I too will have to vote with my pocketbook. My account won't auto-renew, and if there's no offline CB when my subscription runs out, then I'm done.


----------



## OnlineDM (Nov 3, 2010)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Well, at this point it is unknown whether or not WotC will refund any subscription money to those people who are paid up through some amount of time past Nov. 16th... but PaoloM's Q&A seemed to indicate that it's something you'd be able to take up with their Customer Service department.  So if you didn't want to pay for DDI if the CB was now web-only... there seems to be a chance you could get the rest of your money back for the time remaining.
> 
> If that happens... then problem solved.




I think the earlier poster's point was that this change negatively impacts people who have been full-time subscribers, even though WotC has no reason to be targeting them.  Those people are collateral damage in the fight against people who pirate the software or do the occasional one-month subscription for updates.  I think that point is valid - good customers have been negatively impacted, which feels bad.

I don't think the point was, "I'm no longer happy with DDI and I wish to unsubscribe."  I think it was, "Well gee, I'm a GOOD customer and yet I've been negatively impacted by this change.  That feels lousy." That's how I feel, personally.  Not so lousy that I'm going to unsubscribe (I still support D&D and I think DDI is still a useful product) - it's just not quite as attractive as it was before, which is a bummer.  

I'm hoping that the future improvements (export capabilities, new tools) will come quickly and exceed our expectations.  That would make this change a net positive for me.  But at the moment, it's a negative.


----------



## bagger245 (Nov 3, 2010)

So the only ones happy are MAC users and internet-available people? I can't access the WOTC forum, can anyone tell me how is the response over there?


----------



## No Name (Nov 3, 2010)

bagger245 said:


> So the only ones happy are MAC users and internet-available people? I can't access the WOTC forum, can anyone tell me how is the response over there?



The main post in D&Di General about this subject is over 100 pages long and is closing in on 50,000 views. It's getting some attention.


----------



## Mavrik (Nov 3, 2010)

The big issue for me is all the add on's our group use to play at the table

I use iplay4e at the table
Our dm or when i dm uses combat tracker
Sometimes i use my ipad and my character from that

With no export non of these products work, and so our game will be diminished until ' these features like export' become available

But i wont hold my breath


----------



## Prism (Nov 3, 2010)

I still print my characters out from CB so being able to access during play isn't so important to me. However its possible that the new web version will provide a decent in play set of options to replace iplay4e to some degree. I'd prefer the export option to allow choice though.

Changes to the monster builder could concern me but I would assume this would come out ready to go with an export option. Otherwise there wouldn't be much point to it

Using silverlight is a shame for ipad/mobile users but I fully understand why it was used to reduce dev costs and time. I couldn't think of a better or cheaper current way of doing it, especially for a team already skilled in .NET

If the new version is better than the old I will be happy
If the new version provides better future integration with other gaming tools I will be happy


----------



## Enaloindir (Nov 3, 2010)

I'm a Mac user, and I'm not happy with the online-only move...


----------



## evilref (Nov 3, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> I'm sure you can. I'm waiting to see how good the new CB is, though. It's quite possible that it'll knock my socks off, in which case I'm happy to stay subscribed. Change is inherently scary, but it doesn't make much sense to sabre-rattle until you know what you're getting.
> 
> But seriously, guys. Silverlight?




PaoloM has spelled out pretty well why they used Silverlight. They had knowledge of it, it works for content delivery and will facilitate their needs for future tools.     


HTML 5 et al would have taken longer. As for ipads/iphones, it's apple's fault that it doesn't work on them as there's no hardware reason. Jobs et al just don't want a distribution method that can sidestep the app store. I know android functionality is on a 'to do' list at Microsoft (and probably before the olympics 2012 which is using Silverlight), but MS is baffling sometimes (windows 7 tablet...hello...anyone?).      


As for the original question in the thread:    


1) Resolves the many legacy issues with the kludged-together existing Character Builder which had reached its limits.   

2) Facilitate new tools (Monster builder first, other tools apparently on the way). Having everything integrated is obviously an intended feature. Personally I'm hoping for encounter/campaign planning tools that let me stick the characters/monsters straight into them.   

3) Limit the amount of pirating of the character builder which was rampant. By which I mean outright piracy, not sharing the builder around the group which was/is also common but at least someone's paying something. 

As an additional point, PaoloM has stated that the new builder will (when export is added) create .dnd4e files so I don't see why existing tools such as iplay4e won't work. Moreover he requested 3rd party app developers to PM him which bodes well for integration.


----------



## SabreCat (Nov 3, 2010)

I announced it to my group last night as a piece of good news. Before, we had a tendency to hit the 5-updates-a-month barrier, and the Mac users couldn't run it. Now, with a single login everyone can get online and create characters, which is fantastic!

I'm not familiar with Silverlight, though. What about that makes it unusable on iPads? Would it work on an Android device? I'm trying to decide what kind of tablet/laptop/netbook to purchase in the near future, and this could make a difference in what I decide on.


----------



## Riastlin (Nov 3, 2010)

OnlineDM said:


> I think the earlier poster's point was that this change negatively impacts people who have been full-time subscribers, even though WotC has no reason to be targeting them.  Those people are collateral damage in the fight against people who pirate the software or do the occasional one-month subscription for updates.  I think that point is valid - good customers have been negatively impacted, which feels bad.
> 
> I don't think the point was, "I'm no longer happy with DDI and I wish to unsubscribe."  I think it was, "Well gee, I'm a GOOD customer and yet I've been negatively impacted by this change.  That feels lousy." That's how I feel, personally.  Not so lousy that I'm going to unsubscribe (I still support D&D and I think DDI is still a useful product) - it's just not quite as attractive as it was before, which is a bummer.
> 
> I'm hoping that the future improvements (export capabilities, new tools) will come quickly and exceed our expectations.  That would make this change a net positive for me.  But at the moment, it's a negative.




Unfortunately, the few bad apples always ruin things for the vast majority who are good.  This happens everywhere sadly.

That being said, as I mentioned in the other thread, I really don't see this as being a big deal.  I don't necessarily see it as a positive step (in and of itself) but I also don't see it as a negative.  Of course, if the new version comes out riddled with bugs, lacking updates, etc., etc. that is an entirely different issue and one at least partially unrelated to being online.  

The "big news" to me would be more tools, not just online versions of current tools.


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 3, 2010)

No Name said:


> The main post in D&Di General about this subject is over 100 pages long and is closing in on 50,000 views. It's getting some attention.




I posted over there, once or twice, then pretty much gave up on the thread as impossible to keep up with. I would finish reading a page, then the thread was another page longer.

I would say that the majority of posts regarding this are quite negative, based on the restrictions for access or the technology used, but they aren't EXCLUSIVELY negative. Some people seem to be quite happy about it.


----------



## Stumblewyk (Nov 3, 2010)

I am absolutely failing to see where all this uproar is coming from...this announcement has absolutely ZERO net impact on me, and gives my one dedicated "Mac Guy" player the option to not have to use his nightmarishly slow Windows PC for the CB anymore.  Ditto for my "open source guy" player - he finally no longer has to keep his old PC around strictly for the CB.  He's running Silverlight in Chromium on his Linux distro.  He can run the Character Builder.

It's an absolute net positive for my group, and it doesn't effect me one bit.  I don't use iplay4e.  I can still fake an XML file for DnD4CM until they integrate exporting in the online builder.  Absolutely no one I've ever played with has ever used the CB at the table.

I really think most of the negative complaints are coming from people who have been spoiled by having access to ALL the data, ALL the time, and sharing it around with their gaming group.  The truth of the matter is - we ALL used to do this by hand.  On real paper, with real pens and pencils.   And we did just fine.  For decades.  Remember, it's called "P&P RPG" for a reason.

Yes - WotC's given us a pretty awesome tool for the last several years, but it's a tool they've always reserved the right to charge whatever they want for, and limit access to it in any way they want.  We've just been flat-out _spoiled_.  The simple truth is this: *they're not obligated to provide us with ANY kind of tools, at all.*  Most RPG publishers *don't* provide awesome tools.  Be thankful Wizards gives you ANYTHING.


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 3, 2010)

Stumblewyk said:


> I am absolutely failing to see where all this uproar is coming from...this announcement has absolutely ZERO net impact on me...




Perhaps because the majority of people don't seem to be in the same boat as you...? If you haven't already, I suggest that you read the thread over at Wizards. People have cited their reasons for being displeased with this. Good reasons. 

Wizards have given us a good tool but, you know what? It was required. The existence of things like Character Builder have permitted them to be rather lax in checking the effects of various rules, features, and powers because they could easily be subject to errata at a later date. 

Point of fact; the offline nature of Character Builder sold me on my subscription. As many others have I have now disabled automatic renewal for my DDI subscription, though it is annual and won't run out until February.


----------



## Stumblewyk (Nov 3, 2010)

Ryujin said:


> Wizards have given us a good tool but, you know what? It was required. The existence of things like Character Builder have permitted them to be rather lax in checking the effects of various rules, features, and powers because they could easily be subject to errata at a later date.



 No, it's not _required_.  People want to pretend it is, but it's simply not.  It's incredibly useful, it simplifies and eases the character building process, but it's not _required_.

No one, ever, in the history of 4e, has been been _required_ to have a DDI account to build a character.  And they still aren't.

The only difference now is that if you want the privilege of having access to an awesome tool that makes your task a player (and DM) easier, you have to play for it, without letting your account lapse.  There is no circumventing the pricing structure.  You can't get everything for the low, low price of $10.00 once (or every couple of months).

I understand that many people are going to be "negatively" impacted by the announcement, but their complaints all boil down to "I'm inconvenienced", not "I *can't* play D&D anymore."  When the real way to look at this whole mess is "Look how _convenienced_ I was!  Damn, I had it [a little too] good."  IMO, of course.


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 3, 2010)

Stumblewyk said:


> No, it's not _required_.  People want to pretend it is, but it's simply not.  It's incredibly useful, it simplifies and eases the character building process, but it's not _required_.
> 
> No one, ever, in the history of 4e, has been been _required_ to have a DDI account to build a character.  And they still aren't.
> 
> ...




By my definitions when you have to go online and check what major part of your character has been fundamentally altered, making the books you paid big bucks to acquire obsolete, that tool becomes a requirement. 

I don't characterize it as a privilege or inconvenience, when my entire decision to go with 4e (we had been playing Pathfinder for months) was predicated on the existence of the offline tool Character Builder. I also have an annual subscription, not monthly, that I have now disabled auto renewal for.


----------



## Lord Ernie (Nov 3, 2010)

Ryujin said:


> By my definitions when you have to go online and check what major part of your character has been fundamentally altered, making the books you paid big bucks to acquire obsolete, that tool becomes a requirement.
> 
> I don't characterize it as a privilege or inconvenience, when my entire decision to go with 4e (we had been playing Pathfinder for months) was predicated on the existence of the offline tool Character Builder. I also have an annual subscription, not monthly, that I have now disabled auto renewal for.



First of all, yes, if you want the updates and errata WotC publishes every few months, then you'll need the internet at some time to get access to them. This is pretty much a given, since that's how they publish their updates; much like it's impossible to patch any computer software without internet access, I don't see what else they could do.

However, you don't *need* the Character Builder at all to make a character - all the information to do just that is available in the books, and all you really need is 30-60 minutes of time, a piece of paper, and a pen. You are free to download the rules updates and incorporate them into your character building process without any digital tools - hell, this is what several of my players have been doing since the beginning. Likewise, you are free to completely ignore the updates, and just do as you always did.

What you see as a requirement, a need, is simply a convenience which has become so deeply ingrained in your character building process that you feel like you can't do without it. It's understandable, because the options for each character can be a little overwhelming, and I myself have refrained from making anything too complex by hand when I didn't have the tools available. But it's still a convenience.

Personally, whether or not I'm gonna go back to browsing books and using printed updates depends entirely on the look and feel of things in roughly two weeks from now. If the new tools disappoint me, I'll be going back to doing things by hand. But claiming it's necessary to be able to play the game is really rather hyperbolic.


----------



## Walking Dad (Nov 3, 2010)

SabreCat said:


> I announced it to my group last night as a piece  of good news. Before, we had a tendency to hit the 5-updates-a-month  barrier, and the Mac users couldn't run it. Now, with a single login  everyone can get online and create characters, which is fantastic!
> 
> ...



People sharing an account is surely what Hasbro wants and allow in the  future. Why should they ever limit the number of saved characters and  people logged in on one account at the same time...



Lord Ernie said:


> First of all, yes, if you want the updates and errata WotC publishes every few months, then you'll need the internet at some time to get access to them. This is pretty much a given, since that's how they publish their updates; much like it's impossible to patch any computer software without internet access, I don't see what else they could do.
> ...




It was originally a pen&*paper* game and is advised as such. Other companies have simply checked the rules before printing them and lived with most of their rules until a revised edition came to be.

And it is a difference to download a small (data size, not page) pdf. Making it badly bookmarked and not able to have all errata of Warlord level 3 powers, for example, on one or three pages, makes a bad document.

I don't know any other game with as much errata as D&D 4e.

For the similarity to computer games, that is why I preferred consoles. They needed to make it right in the first place, not starting a patch tidal wave a month later


----------



## Riastlin (Nov 3, 2010)

Lord Ernie said:


> Likewise, you are free to completely ignore the updates, and just do as you always did.




This.  I played 3.0/3.5 throughout its entire existence.  My group never used the errata because, frankly, we just didn't want to deal with flipping through all those pages of errata.

Now, in 4th Ed., we have taken to using the eratta simply because the CB incorporated it for us.  Were it not for the CB though we wouldn't be using the errata either.  My first couple of characters (for LFR and a game at a FLGS) were made with pencil and paper.  I hadn't bought into DDI yet (and I don't think CB was up at LFR launch at GenCon either, but I could be wrong on that one).  It was easy then, and its still easy now.  It just happens to be _easier_ with the CB.

To me, the real drawback to the online version comes to those who travel a lot (presumably for work) and like to use the CB when they travel but may not be at a hotel (or other location) with internet access.  I personally, do not buy the "I need to have CB up and running while I play argument."  It may be somewhat convenient (though my personal experience suggests otherwise) but it is far from necessary.  Paper and ink, while not free, are not that expensive either.


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 3, 2010)

Lord Ernie said:


> First of all, yes, if you want the updates and errata WotC publishes every few months, then you'll need the internet at some time to get access to them. This is pretty much a given, since that's how they publish their updates; much like it's impossible to patch any computer software without internet access, I don't see what else they could do.
> 
> However, you don't *need* the Character Builder at all to make a character - all the information to do just that is available in the books, and all you really need is 30-60 minutes of time, a piece of paper, and a pen. You are free to download the rules updates and incorporate them into your character building process without any digital tools - hell, this is what several of my players have been doing since the beginning. Likewise, you are free to completely ignore the updates, and just do as you always did.
> 
> ...




Yes, you need the internet at some point in order to download those updates, whether for CB or PDFs. You don't need it CONSTANTLY, but rather very intermittently. What else could they have done? Something similar to a Microsoft KMS server, in order to verify your legitimate use of the software on a periodic basis wouldn't have been an onerous requirement, but would have continued to permit offline use.

Perhaps the use of the term "necessary" is somewhat over stating the point, but it doesn't rise to the point of gross hyperbole. The very nature and number of updates required in order to maintain Wizard's revenue stream, which relies on the constant release of new material, creates what I would refer to as a practical necessity.

Believe me; after 30+ years of RPGing I'm quite capable of developing a character with pen and paper. As Walking Dad said, I can't recall any game I've ever played that had anywhere near the level of errata that 4e does.


----------



## Piratecat (Nov 3, 2010)

evilref said:


> PaoloM has spelled out pretty well why they used Silverlight. They had knowledge of it, it works for content delivery and will facilitate their needs for future tools.



Oh, I understand why. I just think it was a bad and short-sighted choice. Using a notoriously fiddly environment that Microsoft is not updating/is distancing itself from, and one that doesn't come pre-installed, doesn't seem like a great choice for long-term viability.



> HTML 5 et al would have taken longer. As for ipads/iphones, it's apple's fault that it doesn't work on them as there's no hardware reason.



Here you bring up a valid point that I completely reject! As a consumer I don't give a darn whose fault it is; I want from WotC a product that will work on my iphone and ipad. I don't care in the least what Apple's policy is, I care that WotC can and should create a product that works on these near-ubiquitous mobile devices. Even with the likely iPad product coming, I find some of their business choices frustrating.

Can't wait to see the new builder, though. We'll see how it is, and I'm excited and hoping for the best. After all, doesn't Netflix Instant Streaming use Silverlight?


----------



## renau1g (Nov 3, 2010)

Stumblewyk said:


> Be thankful Wizards gives you ANYTHING.




I pay them for that, they *give* me nothing. They provide something that I pay them money for. Giving is charity, they are not being charitable. They have provided one of the best tools for character generation ever and as such I paid them for that tool. They are now changing that tool into a service.


----------



## Prism (Nov 3, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> Here you bring up a valid point that I completely reject! As a consumer I don't give a darn whose fault it is; I want from WotC a product that will work on my iphone and ipad. I don't care in the least what Apple's policy is, I care that WotC can and should create a product that works on these near-ubiquitous mobile devices. Even with the likely iPad product coming, I find some of their business choices frustrating.




I leaning the other way on the use of silverlight. I'd take a bet that without it and given the same timeframe/cost the app would have been of lower quality with the existing dev team and for that reason I'm happy the simple approach has been taken.
I can envision a version of the app where the front end is eventually HTML5 (once its decent enough) and the back end calculation/data elements are silverlight. MS aren't dropping silverlight...just moving away from it within the browser


----------



## renau1g (Nov 3, 2010)

Wasn't Flash also moved away from like MS is doing with silverlight? It seems to be working ok.


----------



## drothgery (Nov 3, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> Can't wait to see the new builder, though. We'll see how it is, and I'm excited and hoping for the best. After all, doesn't Netflix Instant Streaming use Silverlight?




The standard web client (and possibly some others) for Netflix does; the iOS client doesn't (and some others).


----------



## mudbunny (Nov 3, 2010)

Stumblewyk said:


> Ditto for my "open source guy" player - he finally no longer has to keep his old PC around strictly for the CB.  He's running Silverlight in Chromium on his Linux distro.  He can run the Character Builder.




Would it be possible for you to get more info on how your Linux guy gets Silverlight working?? That is something that I would love to be able to share with others.


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 3, 2010)

Prism said:


> I leaning the other way on the use of silverlight. I'd take a bet that without it and given the same timeframe/cost the app would have been of lower quality with the existing dev team and for that reason I'm happy the simple approach has been taken.
> I can envision a version of the app where the front end is eventually HTML5 (once its decent enough) and the back end calculation/data elements are silverlight. MS aren't dropping silverlight...just moving away from it within the browser




Could have used Java which, while cludgy, is about as cross-platform as you can get.


----------



## Stumblewyk (Nov 3, 2010)

mudbunny said:


> Would it be possible for you to get more info on how your Linux guy gets Silverlight working?? That is something that I would love to be able to share with others.




I'm sure there's a hack involved in there somewhere or something...I'm not a Linux guy at all, but I'll ask him what he's planning on doing, and send you a PM.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Nov 3, 2010)

Ok, so we can not longer download a CB once every few months to get ALL THE UPDATES and NEW STUFF.  I get it.

My question is, what about the online Dragon and Dungeon mags, and other pdfs and articles?  As it stands now, you can do the same...  Subscribe to DDI once every 6 months, and get all those pdfs.

So, is that also going to change?  I would assume so.  After all, if they are going to make you pay a montly fee for constant CB features, what about having constant access to Dragon and Dungeon mag?


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 3, 2010)

Stumblewyk said:


> Be thankful Wizards gives you ANYTHING.




Wizard GAVE me something? Hell, I thought I was paying for it. I'll immediately ask Wizards to return the years of CB updates I'd been paying for all this time. Sheesh. Silly me. Thinking I was paying for a product.

Like those dummies who bought PDF's from DriveThruRPG and had 'em yanked. Wizards must have GAVE them something too eh?


----------



## Pseudopsyche (Nov 3, 2010)

malraux said:


> Yeah, macs as old as 4 years can run the regular character builder.  Anything with an intel chip inside can run windows.



To be clear, Macs can run the old Character Builder by (a) buying a second OS, a copy of Windows, and (b) either buying virtualization software (VMware or Parallels) or rebooting every time you want to switch between Windows and Mac OS X.

I own several Macs, but the hassle and expense was great enough that I was forced to use our ancient Windows XP machine for the Character Builder.  The new Character Builder is a big win for me personally.


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 3, 2010)

mudbunny said:


> Would it be possible for you to get more info on how your Linux guy gets Silverlight working?? That is something that I would love to be able to share with others.




Not Silverlight, per se: Moonlight - Mono


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Nov 3, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> Like those dummies who bought PDF's from DriveThruRPG and had 'em yanked. Wizards must have GAVE them something too eh?



Did DriveThruRPG refund the money people spent to buy the books when they got yanked?

(Not being snarky or anything here... just actually curious.  I don't recall the fallout from when that happened.)


----------



## renau1g (Nov 3, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> Wizard GAVE me something? Hell, I thought I was paying for it. I'll immediately ask Wizards to return the years of CB updates I'd been paying for all this time. Sheesh. Silly me. Thinking I was paying for a product.
> 
> Like those dummies who bought PDF's from DriveThruRPG and had 'em yanked. Wizards must have GAVE them something too eh?




Maybe stumble is talking about people getting them for free from torrent sites. Those people had them "given" I guess :shrug:


----------



## Stumblewyk (Nov 3, 2010)

renau1g said:


> I pay them for that, they *give* me nothing. They provide something that I pay them money for. Giving is charity, they are not being charitable. They have provided one of the best tools for character generation ever and as such I paid them for that tool. They are now changing that tool into a service.



 Okay.  "Gives" was a poor choice of words - assume I meant "provides".

Regardless...it was _always_ a service, IMO.  I always considered my DDI account to be a subscription granting me access to the data in a digital format, not to be a fee I was paying to rent their software application.

It's obviously a difference of opinion.  I don't claim to have a monopoly on valid opinions regarding this matter, but I just can't see how anyone would believe they have a legitimate right to contend continued support of the "old" Character Builder.  Wizards _provided_ you with a really cool piece of software.  Now, they're still providing you with a really cool _tool_.

_*shrug*_


----------



## Pseudopsyche (Nov 3, 2010)

SabreCat said:


> I'm not familiar with Silverlight, though. What about that makes it unusable on iPads? Would it work on an Android device? I'm trying to decide what kind of tablet/laptop/netbook to purchase in the near future, and this could make a difference in what I decide on.



For iOS, the problem with Silverlight is the same as the problem with Flash: it's a proprietary layer of technology originally designed to run on machines with desktop-level hardware.  Technologically, they lack the performance characteristics of native iOS applications and HTML.  Legally, iOS and Android must rely on the owners of the proprietary framework to produce secure and efficient runtime environments.  Adobe has only recently advanced the mobile version of Flash to the point that it can run some Flash content on Android devices (with some potential cost to battery life), but for iOS the ship has sailed, long ago.

It's not clear to me where Microsoft is going with Silverlight.  My impression, which could easily be wrong, is that they will support it or a version of it with Windows 7 Phone, "but HTML is the only true cross platform solution for everything, including (Apple’s) iOS platform" according to the guy in charge of their server and tools business.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 3, 2010)

Ryujin said:


> Could have used Java which, while cludgy, is about as cross-platform as you can get.




My guess is that this would have required a lot more development time/money and possibly even a new team.

By using silverlight they probably were able to salvage a lot from the old CB for use in the new.

This allows them to quickly and efficiently open the CB to a large group of people who weren't supported before (mac users) without a huge investment of time/money rebuilding everything from the ground up.


It's really only the front end, the actual data is housed on the backend. If/when it comes time to get something going for say, ipads/phones or android devices they'll probably choose something better suited for them.

I mean the big push on those devices is apps as opposed to web based interfaces.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 3, 2010)

Stumblewyk said:


> Okay.  "Gives" was a poor choice of words - assume I meant "provides".
> 
> Regardless...it was _always_ a service, IMO.  I always considered my DDI account to be a subscription granting me access to the data in a digital format, not to be a fee I was paying to rent their software application.
> 
> ...




I can see what you're saying but having it online only is a deal breaker for me for reasons I've gone into several places.

People keep talking about "You can't have expected Wizards really wanted you to have all that content" without acknowledging that, yeah, up to now, that is EXACTLY how it worked.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 3, 2010)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Did DriveThruRPG refund the money people spent to buy the books when they got yanked?
> 
> (Not being snarky or anything here... just actually curious.  I don't recall the fallout from when that happened.)




With your curiosity peaked i'm sure you'll look it up.


----------



## darjr (Nov 3, 2010)

Silverlight supports an offline mode. From what I understand it supports it in MacOS as well. The new CB won't support that because of a WotC/developer decision.


----------



## mudbunny (Nov 3, 2010)

Scribble said:


> My guess is that this would have required a lot more development time/money and possibly even a new team.
> 
> By using silverlight they probably were able to salvage a lot from the old CB for use in the new.
> 
> ...




I would say that is the plan. Paolo has said that they would use the programming platform that is best suited for the application. For the CB, Silverlight was what they had determined to be the best platform. For the Compendium, they use something different. (not a codemonkey, so I have no idea what it uses, no do I remember what he said it uses.)


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Nov 3, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> With your curiosity peaked i'm sure you'll look it up.




Touche.  And now, having done that... it appears that Steve Wieck from DriveThruRPG posted on the Wizards boards that any book that had been purchased but not yet downloaded was able to be refunded.  Whether or not that policy actually went through, I don't know.


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 3, 2010)

Scribble said:


> My guess is that this would have required a lot more development time/money and possibly even a new team.
> 
> By using silverlight they probably were able to salvage a lot from the old CB for use in the new.
> 
> ...




Then you do what everyone else does; farm it out to people whose expertise is in the required area. All that we're talking about is a database with an interface that calculates certain set data, and a "look and feel" interface that matches the context of the information. 

They have the database. They apparently have graphic designers and playtesters, who could dictate the information present and the look, and feel of the interface. There's not a lot left. Hell, they could have even gone to one of the developers/companies that currently do competing product, for other games, who would likely have been glad of the new revenue stream and have the needed specific knowledge.


----------



## malraux (Nov 3, 2010)

Ryujin said:


> Then you do what everyone else does; farm it out to people whose expertise is in the required area. All that we're talking about is a database with an interface that calculates certain set data, and a "look and feel" interface that matches the context of the information.
> 
> They have the database. They apparently have graphic designers and playtesters, who could dictate the information present and the look, and feel of the interface. There's not a lot left. Hell, they could have even gone to one of the developers/companies that currently do competing product, for other games, who would likely have been glad of the new revenue stream and have the needed specific knowledge.




In fairness, they tried doing that originally and it backfired spectacularly.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 3, 2010)

Ryujin said:


> Then you do what everyone else does; farm it out to people whose expertise is in the required area. All that we're talking about is a database with an interface that calculates certain set data, and a "look and feel" interface that matches the context of the information.




Sure they could have done that, but notice I said they probably wanted to salvage what they had, and save time/money on re-building from scratch?

Also keep in mind that they have to support it. They have to update it, and build in new features.

They already have guys on salary that work with .net and silverlight. So now you're paying their salary and also paying to farm out a new product?

Again it makes sense to do this on a platform that the guys know/ allows them to salvage what already exists, and works on the two major platforms that will be using the CB.

Is it the ultimate most ideal of all possible solutions? Obviously not, but it's probably the most ideal of all the options they had available.


----------



## darjr (Nov 3, 2010)

malraux said:


> In fairness, they tried doing that originally and it backfired spectacularly.




I think they picked a brand new company with brand new management and their project was that companies very first. I think.


----------



## Pyrex (Nov 3, 2010)

Walking Dad said:


> People sharing an account is surely what Hasbro wants and allow in the  future.




It was explicitly stated in the thread on the WotC board (I'll link it if I spot the post again) that account sharing is against the Terms of Use, i.e., they very much *don't* want you to do it.

I suspect that they recognize the difference between you bringing your laptop to the game and letting other players use the builder as valid, they just don't want you giving your sign-in credentials to 10 people and letting them all use it simultaneously.


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 3, 2010)

malraux said:


> In fairness, they tried doing that originally and it backfired spectacularly.




I wasn't aware of that. What was the situation (broad strokes only)?



Scribble said:


> Sure they could have done that, but notice I said they probably wanted to salvage what they had, and save time/money on re-building from scratch?
> 
> Also keep in mind that they have to support it. They have to update it, and build in new features.
> 
> ...




Sometimes you just have to bite the bullet and realize you don't have the right people in-house, to get the job done. Anyway, based on the delays we've been seeing it would appear that those people they're already employing don't have the necessary ability to meet deadlines. Once you recognize that point the decision to use outside contractors, or even to go to another technology, is an easier one to consider.

They have the database. It could be ported to damned-near anything that they needed. It's just data. The presentation is the issue.


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 3, 2010)

Pyrex said:


> It was explicitly stated in the thread on the WotC board (I'll link it if I spot the post again) that account sharing is against the Terms of Use, i.e., they very much *don't* want you to do it.
> 
> I suspect that they recognize the difference between you bringing your laptop to the game and letting other players use the builder as valid, they just don't want you giving your sign-in credentials to 10 people and letting them all use it simultaneously.




Which was rather odd given the "coincidence" that the ideal number of characters in the game was 5, which matched the number of monthly updates available.


----------



## renau1g (Nov 3, 2010)

Scribble said:


> It's really only the front end, the actual data is housed on the backend. If/when it comes time to get something going for say, ipads/phones or android devices they'll probably choose something better suited for them.
> 
> I mean the big push on those devices is apps as opposed to web based interfaces.




And maybe Blackberrys...


----------



## renau1g (Nov 3, 2010)

Ryujin said:


> I wasn't aware of that. What was the situation (broad strokes only)?




IIRC the virtual table-top, the character visualizer, all those really cool things in your PHB/DMG that had everyone so jazzed up for the new tools. The company couldn't deliver and so hopes were dashed and people still bring up the failed VTT as a sore spot. Most people have moved on, but c'est la vie.


----------



## malraux (Nov 3, 2010)

renau1g said:


> IIRC the virtual table-top, the character visualizer, all those really cool things in your PHB/DMG that had everyone so jazzed up for the new tools. The company couldn't deliver and so hopes were dashed and people still bring up the failed VTT as a sore spot. Most people have moved on, but c'est la vie.




It wasn't just that they didn't deliver as it was that first, WotC spent a lot of money on the project (I think the numbers are around multiple millions of dollars) and second the code that was received was so poor that WotC's in house team had to trash the whole thing and start over.


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 3, 2010)

renau1g said:


> IIRC the virtual table-top, the character visualizer, all those really cool things in your PHB/DMG that had everyone so jazzed up for the new tools. The company couldn't deliver and so hopes were dashed and people still bring up the failed VTT as a sore spot. Most people have moved on, but c'est la vie.




I see. I was aware of those apps never panning out, but wasn't aware that they had been farmed to outside companies.

Apt use of le Francais, in response to a question to Mr. le Pope, Jean Malraux


----------



## Scribble (Nov 3, 2010)

Ryujin said:


> Sometimes you just have to bite the bullet and realize you don't have the right people in-house, to get the job done. Anyway, based on the delays we've been seeing it would appear that those people they're already employing don't have the necessary ability to meet deadlines. Once you recognize that point the decision to use outside contractors, or even to go to another technology, is an easier one to consider.




And equally sometimes you have to bite the bullet and realize you have to work within a budget, within a team structure, etc...

I mean part of it appears to be cleaning up the mess the other company left behind, and getting things into a proper state that they can work with going forward.

Maybe you think I'm trying to argue that Silverlight is the best medium to work with or something?

I'm not... I'm saying I think it was probably the best way to go to solve the issues they were having within (mostly) the budget/timeline they had to work with.

Like if I go to a friends house to help him build a new wall, and all he has is a hand saw. It would be better to buy or rent a chop saw, but he doesn't have the money, nor do we have the time to go to home depot right now.

So we use the hand saw.



> They have the database. It could be ported to damned-near anything that they needed. It's just data. The presentation is the issue.




Sure- that's what I'm saying. At this point it probably made the most sense to use Silverlight. 

When the time comes to open it up to things like iphones and android devices they'll pick whatever is most appropriate for those devices.


----------



## Merlin the Tuna (Nov 3, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> As a consumer I don't give a darn whose fault it is; I want from WotC a product that will work on my iphone and ipad. I don't care in the least what Apple's policy is, I care that WotC can and should create a product that works on these near-ubiquitous mobile devices.



Piratecat, I love you, but this is a little ridiculous.  You bought devices from a company that _PRIDES ITSELF_ on being incompatible with as many industry standards as it can get away with.  If you're upset that third-party software doesn't work on those devices, then you were either misinformed regarding their capabilities or seriously misjudged whatever information you had.

Much as the world may try to convince us otherwise, smartphones are not "near-ubiquitous" -- a quick glance at Wikipedia pegs them at merely 20% of the American cell phone market.  (Also, Apple isn't the market leader as far as OSes go: that goes to Android).  And the iPad market is an order of magnitude smaller than that.  You can't just buy fancy toys and expect the world to bend over  backwards to accommodate them.  (Well you can, I guess, but we're seeing that doesn't always get you far. )


----------



## renau1g (Nov 3, 2010)

Look forward, smart phones are growing very quickly , so companies should look to plan ahead.
Smartphone IC market to double 2010-14; basic phone IC market to halve. - 11/3/2010 - Electronics Weekly

Many people make software/apps that work with Apple stuff, so that's not an excuse. (personally I own nothing of Apple, as I find it over-priced and over-hyped so I'm certainly no fanboy).

Also, 7.5 million Ipads isn't a small amount, especially as many gamers are also techies and therefore have a higher rate of adopting new technologies. Me? I'm waiting for the Playbook to come out from RIM.
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscent..._top_20_billion_in_fiscal_fourth_quarter.html


----------



## Scribble (Nov 3, 2010)

renau1g said:


> Also, 7.5 million Ipads isn't a small amount, especially as many gamers are also techies and therefore have a higher rate of adopting new technologies. Me? I'm waiting for the Playbook to come out from RIM.
> Apple Sales Top $20 Billion in Fiscal Fourth Quarter - PCWorld Business Center





I think we don't really have enough info right now. PaoloM talked about a number of tools in various stages of design.

I think this might be a case of while many people were using the CB as an at the table character referencing device, that wasn't it's intended purpose, so they chose to focus on its intended purpose first, then possibly move on to other things appropriate to the task later.

I mean they could very well be working on an IPAD app that ties into the CB or is for use as an at the table multimedia character sheet.

We don't know one way or the other.

It would be smart for them to get into app support, but who knows.


----------



## Zaran (Nov 3, 2010)

So, I am basically going to be getting the same product I already had.  I was paying for the service every month so I will not be one of those that is forced to keep up a subscription.   So this really doesn't effect me except for the fact that I haven't had access to Darksun and Essentials content on the character builder for 2 months.   The always internet thing doesn't bother me.  I have cutepdf maker.  I don't need to make characters when I'm in the middle of the desert so that's ok.

So I would like to ask those of you who have been cancelling your subscriptions.  Would you have cancelled knowing that the delays are because of this tools system?  If they had come forth 2 months ago and said, "we aren't updating the offline CB because we are working on a new online format" would you have cancelled?  I wouldn't have.  How many of you are cancelling because of this new feature?

I still would like to know if we will get anything more than what they offer us now. It seems to me that if this is the only thing being worked on for months then they should hire more people to work on new product while they upgrade the old.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 3, 2010)

Zaran said:


> I still would like to know if we will get anything more than what they offer us now. It seems to me that if this is the only thing being worked on for months then they should hire more people to work on new product while they upgrade the old.




One of the Devs said this is only one of the various new tools they are planning to release that are in various stages of delivery. He could not talk about what they were, or when they would be released though- so take that with whatever sized grain of salt you feel appropriate.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 3, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> Using a notoriously fiddly environment that Microsoft is not updating/is distancing itself from, and one that doesn't come pre-installed, doesn't seem like a great choice for long-term viability.




The secret of web-apps - you don't need to build your display technology with much long-term viability in mind.  Your database, storage, and server architectures?  Yes.  But the end display tech?  Not so much.  You can swap it out at any time.  That's a large part of the point of delivering software services through a browser!



> I want from WotC a product that will work on my iphone and ipad. I don't care in the least what Apple's policy is, I care that WotC can and should create a product that works on these near-ubiquitous mobile devices.




In the first half of 2010, smartphones were only 20% of the cell phones shipped, and Apple's OS was only about 14% of the smartphone market in Q2.  That makes iPhones about 3% of the total phone market?  I'd not call that ubiquitous.

Even if you imagine that they're two or three times more popular among gamers than on average, that's like 10% of the market.  You don't usually go too far out of your way for 10%.


----------



## renau1g (Nov 3, 2010)

Umbran said:


> You don't usually go too far out of your way for 10%.




Except when you re-design the CB allegedly for Mac users  

I wish they'd just be honest and say they weren't making enough from occasional users and hope that this curbs piracy.


----------



## darjr (Nov 3, 2010)

consider all the itouches


----------



## Scribble (Nov 3, 2010)

renau1g said:


> Except when you re-design the CB allegedly for Mac users
> 
> I wish they'd just be honest and say they weren't making enough from occasional users and hope that this curbs piracy.




Did they say that was the reason? 

I saw a bunch of highlights as to why it was a good thing, but nothing that outright said why they did it...

My favorite was characters are stored online in our vault so you don't have to!

I find it convenient actually but still I never really sat there complaining about how I have to store all these dern characters on my PC... 

If only I didn't have to save my Drow Ranger... I'd have room for that text file I wanted to download from that bulletin board!  (It's full of ascii art!)


----------



## Scribble (Nov 3, 2010)

darjr said:


> consider all the itouches




I don't wanna consider everything youtouches!


----------



## renau1g (Nov 3, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Did they say that was the reason?




No, I was just putting words in their mouth, seems like everyone else is, so I thought I'd join in on the fun. 



Scribble said:


> I saw a bunch of highlights as to why it was a good thing, but nothing that outright said why they did it...
> 
> My favorite was characters are stored online in our vault so you don't have to!
> 
> ...



That was my favourite as well. 

Oh... and there's no way I'm going anywhere near anyone's Itouch


----------



## Piratecat (Nov 3, 2010)

Umbran said:


> In the first half of 2010, smartphones were only 20% of the cell phones shipped, and Apple's OS was only about 14% of the smartphone market in Q2.  That makes iPhones about 3% of the total phone market?  I'd not call that ubiquitous.
> 
> Even if you imagine that they're two or three times more popular among gamers than on average, that's like 10% of the market.  You don't usually go too far out of your way for 10%.



I sat down to chat with Bill Slavicsek and WotC's CEO a year and a half ago. When asked what they would have done differently regarding e-tools, Bill told me that he thought they missed an opportunity with the iPhone. Challenging formatting-for-mobile-platforms aside, I'm disappointed that this isn't part of the solution.

I take a look at media and ask myself why iPhones and iPads get such an absurd amount of buzz compared to their market penetration. They're sexy. D&D marketing could use more of that.


----------



## renau1g (Nov 3, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> I take a look at media and ask myself why iPhones and iPads get such an absurd amount of buzz compared to their market penetration.




Me too...


----------



## Henry (Nov 3, 2010)

The Ipod touch has too small a screen for something like this, and I wouldn't want to go zooming in and out jsut to use it, quite frankly. 

Beside this point, they've even got ME considering dumping my subscription at this point - I really have no interest in some fiddly web-tool they can't even prove to me they'll keep available at anywhere near ONE nine, much less five nines, having to store my characters on the cloud where I'm slave to their storage limitations. On the good side, Silverlight IS a good interface technology (I've used it for some work projects before), and heck I already have it loaded for netflix and other stuff from the internet, anyway. However, that's not enough to outweigh the cons -- the real con being that it doesn't look like anything is coming down the pike for the next 6 months that my group will be interested in, anyway. It's not worth keeping for that.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 3, 2010)

> The Ipod touch has too small a screen for something like this, and I wouldn't want to go zooming in and out jsut to use it, quite frankly.




About 85% of my recent posts on this site the past month have been done on my iTouch.  It's not that I prefer it to my iMac, but the iTouch is on my person all damn day.

It's a little difficult to read or navigate at times, but its effortless zooming capabilities minimize the pain greatly.

I'm still thinking if would be better on an iPad...or maybe getting an actual MacBook Pro.

Soooo...not the best platform for it, but still workable.


----------



## DarkLord Of DForce (Nov 3, 2010)

Another Kentuckian - more of us than you know!


----------



## Merlin the Tuna (Nov 3, 2010)

Zaran said:


> So I would like to ask those of you who have been cancelling your subscriptions.  Would you have cancelled knowing that the delays are because of this tools system?  If they had come forth 2 months ago and said, "we aren't updating the offline CB because we are working on a new online format" would you have cancelled?  I wouldn't have.  How many of you are cancelling because of this new feature?



I almost certainly would've, for one; that announcement would've indicated that our subscription money was going towards duplicating existing functionality in a new, less-convenient format, while dropping a handful of existing features.  As it stands, we're close enough to the 16th that I'll stick around until then to give it a go, but I will more than likely cancel my subscription by the 20th.  Had the announcement come sooner, I wouldn't have bothered waiting to try the new one.

And I'm going to say it again, but I'd probably have been better off cutting off before, since then I wouldn't have gotten that incredibly stupid update to Character Builder Classic that keeps you from buying magic items.


----------



## falcarrion (Nov 3, 2010)

Umbran said:


> The secret of web-apps - you don't need to build your display technology with much long-term viability in mind.  Your database, storage, and server architectures?  Yes.  But the end display tech?  Not so much.  You can swap it out at any time.  That's a large part of the point of delivering software services through a browser!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




According to the latest figures from Nielsen, 28 percent of U.S. mobile phone owners own smartphones, as of the Q3 2010. 
The strong growth was attributed mainly to an explosion in iPhone and Android device sales. 

While all data firms release different numbers for the same data, the consensus is clear. RIM still leads the market, with Apple a close second. Android, seeing incredible growth, continues to take share. 

For the quarter, RIM controlled 30 percent of the U.S. market for smartphones, followed by the iPhone at 28 percent. Android has moved to 19 percent share. 

Getting into interesting demographics, RIM had the most users over the age of 45, while Apple had the most under 45. Over 50 percent of Android users were under 35 years of age. 

Over the past six months, 41 percent of all new phone buyers are choosing to purchase smartphones, a six percent increase from the six month period before it.


----------



## falcarrion (Nov 3, 2010)

The iPad - the overwhelming champion of the tablet market in the third quarter - enjoyed the market dominance its chief executive officer predicted last month. 

Apple ( AAPL ) commanded 95 percent of tablet sales in July, August and September, according to a Strategy Analytics report and Forbes.com . Of the 4.4 tablets sold in the third quarter, 4.19 million were iPads. During the second quarter, 3.5 million tablets sold. 

Both Hewlett-Packard ( HPQ ) and Research in Motion ( RIMM ) are devising and manufacturing competitors to Apple's iPad, but those machines have yet to see the market. 

The chief executives of Research in Motion and Apple verbally sparred late last month over the iPad's dominance and Research in Motion's PlayBook. Steve Jobs of Apple said during a conference call that the status of his company's machine as customers' heavy favorite was unshakable. In response, Jim Balsillie of Research in Motion admonished Jobs for imposing on customers' thought processes. 

Sales of Dell ( DELL ) and Motorola ( MOT ) tablets, which run on the Android manufactured by Google ( GOOG ), accounted for 2.3 percent of sales during the third quarter, which plunged from 2.9 percent in the second quarter.

The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc.



Read more: Apple's iPad commands Q3 tablet sales - NASDAQ.com


----------



## Solvarn (Nov 3, 2010)

*Value point*

I don't really feel that the offerings for DDI currently justify the cost. That will probably change in the future.

They should offer a free month to new subscribers and credit existing subscribers one month. This would allow people to get hooked on it.

I cancelled my subscription because I use one of my friend's downloads. The digital offerings (Dungeon, Dragon, etc.) have been crap of late. Don't see a reason to re-up to be honest. Can't blame them for making the change though, always thought it was a stupid business plan.


----------



## Pseudonym (Nov 3, 2010)

Ryujin said:


> Not Silverlight, per se: Moonlight - Mono




As an Ubuntu user, this makes me wonder how close the development cycle would need to match Silverlight's revisions. I tried to use Mono to emulate .NET to get the CB working, but Mono lagged behind .NET so that it couldn't emulate version 3.5 and the CB wouldn't run. I had to create a VM with XP just to run it.

Assuming Moonlight matches Silverlight enough that I can run it no issues, that would be great, but I don't want something that is a version or two behind what I need to run this new thing. If it'll run in Chrome no hassles, that would be fine.

I didn't read the entire Q&A, but my first question is what happens if the server goes down. No characters? Worse, what if something happens and they have to restore from a backup? We all have to rebuild. I'm thinking of ever issue I ever had with characters in a MMORPG manifesting in this new CB. I guess we'll all have to wait and see,

Last night I came expecting to play my envoker mage, but we were missing some folks so I made an Essentials knight in all of five minutes with a pencil and the book. Granted a much simpler set of options, but I realized how spoiled I've gotten,


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 3, 2010)

Pseudonym said:


> As an Ubuntu user, this makes me wonder how close the development cycle would need to match Silverlight's revisions. I tried to use Mono to emulate .NET to get the CB working, but Mono lagged behind .NET so that it couldn't emulate version 3.5 and the CB wouldn't run. I had to create a VM with XP just to run it.
> 
> Assuming Moonlight matches Silverlight enough that I can run it no issues, that would be great, but I don't want something that is a version or two behind what I need to run this new thing. If it'll run in Chrome no hassles, that would be fine.
> 
> ...




Lost data is unlikely, given even basic redundancies. I think that more realistic fears, based on past performance, would involve server inaccessibility and server overloading.


----------



## surfarcher (Nov 4, 2010)

Don't hold your breath expecting WotC to ensure it's Moonlight compatable.

Yeah you heard me.  Expect them to give you a violent surprise sodomization too


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 4, 2010)

surfarcher said:


> Yeah you heard me.  Expect them to give you a violent surprise sodomization too



I understand they're paying Brett Favre a _buttload_ of money to do that for 'em, too.


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 4, 2010)

falcarrion said:


> The iPad - the overwhelming champion of the tablet market in the third quarter - enjoyed the market dominance its chief executive officer predicted last month.
> 
> Apple ( AAPL ) commanded 95 percent of tablet sales in July, August and September, according to a Strategy Analytics report and Forbes.com . Of the 4.4 tablets sold in the third quarter, 4.19 million were iPads. During the second quarter, 3.5 million tablets sold.
> 
> ...




Dell's tablet PC isn't really what I would call a tablet, having had to support them in limited numbers. It's more of a laptop with tablet function, that is flaky and fairly unreliable for daily use. I can understand why their market share is so low, as my experiences with this product have been rather bad. OTOH I'm a big proponent of Dell's true laptop products.

The new devices, that various companies will soon be releasing, are actual tablets.


----------



## Votan (Nov 4, 2010)

Walking Dad said:


> I don't know any other game with as much errata as D&D 4e.




Star Fleet Battles.  

Pre-internet the errata had to be hunted down in monthly magazines resulting in a fair degree of difficulty in making sure everyone had all of the errata.


----------



## Votan (Nov 4, 2010)

Ryujin said:


> Which was rather odd given the "coincidence" that the ideal number of characters in the game was 5, which matched the number of monthly updates available.




I more suspect five was picked so that Customer Service would not have to deal with people who had some trouble with an operating system (and wanted it on their laptop as well).  A couple of bad installs could hit a lower cap rather easily; more than five stretches credibility for OS installation issues.


----------



## Riastlin (Nov 4, 2010)

^^^ And actually, five downloads would still leave a group 1 short -- assuming that the DM wanted a copy for himself which I think is a pretty safe assumption.

As for tablets, I didn't even realize there were any competitors to the iPad yet.  I know there are several coming out next year, which by the looks of them, seem as though they'll have better features (or rather better hardware).  I had not heard about the price yet though.  More to the point, the tablets are really too expensive at this point anyway.


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 4, 2010)

The DM had Compendium, though that required being online. It seemed perfectly suited to an entire group.


----------



## ki11erDM (Nov 4, 2010)

shidaku said:


> What part of WotC being a corporation, selling endless amounts of new and expensive books, minis, card-games, tools, and accessories, what part of them making an online for-pay service, made you think at any moment that their end goal was NOT the money?




WotC is part of a large publicly traded American corporation.  Their ONLY job is it to render as much money from the economy as possible.  Anyone that understands the basics of American capitalism can see how the new CB and the other tools they are working will be more efficient in generating income for their shareholders.
That does not guarantee it will be a success… but the potential is there.  If it is implemented correctly and followed up with indispensable tools they will increase WotC value and the value of the D&D brand and the value of Hasbro.


----------



## Riastlin (Nov 4, 2010)

Ryujin said:


> The DM had Compendium, though that required being online. It seemed perfectly suited to an entire group.




Sure, except that a lot of DM's (myself included) also like to play from time to time, meaning that its nice for the DM to have a copy of the CB too.  Additionally, I use the CB as a DM to create pre-gens for when my party is short-handed or somebody new shows up (we play at a FLGS) and wants to give it a try.

A small point perhaps, but just worth mentioning.


----------



## falcarrion (Nov 4, 2010)

This could be the begining to the end of the core book rules. Nothing is stopping them from stopping support for the core books and only supporting Essentials and darksun. And with the new CB, it will be very easy to do. 6 months down the line they could just say " We have decided to only support Essentials and Darksun. So all content to the core books is being removed from the website. So if you want to play 4e, buy the Essential line or subscribe to the website."

Lets face it. If the CB was revamped to handle Essentials thats the line they are going to push. And all the core book stuff will gather dust. Like your 3.5, 3.0, 2nd ed, and AD&D 1 ed. A flick of the wrist and no more support for the core books.

So be smart and down load the CB as it is now and store it. It may very well be the last Core rules stuff you will see. From here on out support for Essentials will be there main focus.


----------



## Jhaelen (Nov 5, 2010)

falcarrion said:


> This could be the begining to the end of the core book rules. Nothing is stopping them from stopping support for the core books and only supporting Essentials and darksun.



Here's what's stopping them: Business acumen.

It wouldn't offer any advantage and only serve to alienate a large part of the customer base.


----------



## Lord Ernie (Nov 5, 2010)

Jhaelen said:


> Here's what's stopping them: Business acumen.
> 
> It wouldn't offer any advantage and only serve to alienate a large part of the customer base.



But that may be just what they intend! That way, they piss off all their customers, and ruin the D&D name forever! It's Mike Mearls's evil master plan, I tell you!



A side-note: I find it amusing that both Lead Developers for both M:TG and D&D have been given a reputation for ruining their product by those that didn't like what they were doing. I find it more amusing that in both cases, people ran with it and turned it into a running gag - in the first case, the man himself, in the second, the fandom.

But maybe I am easily amused.


----------



## evilref (Nov 5, 2010)

falcarrion said:


> This could be the begining to the end of the core book rules. Nothing is stopping them from stopping support for the core books and only supporting Essentials and darksun. And with the new CB, it will be very easy to do. 6 months down the line they could just say " We have decided to only support Essentials and Darksun. So all content to the core books is being removed from the website. So if you want to play 4e, buy the Essential line or subscribe to the website."
> 
> Lets face it. If the CB was revamped to handle Essentials thats the line they are going to push. And all the core book stuff will gather dust. Like your 3.5, 3.0, 2nd ed, and AD&D 1 ed. A flick of the wrist and no more support for the core books.
> 
> So be smart and down load the CB as it is now and store it. It may very well be the last Core rules stuff you will see. From here on out support for Essentials will be there main focus.




And this ladies and gentlemen is a text-book example of flawed logic and broken reasoning.

Cows are green, grass is white indeed.


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 5, 2010)

Jhaelen said:


> Here's what's stopping them: Business acumen.
> 
> It wouldn't offer any advantage and only serve to alienate a large part of the customer base.




Seems to me they're doing quite well at that, at the moment.


----------



## Riastlin (Nov 5, 2010)

FWIW, today's Ampersand specifically mentioned that they were looking into making the Tools compatible with mobile devices and tablets, etc.

Note though that "looking into" is not the same as "We will absolutely, positively, without a doubt be bringing these applications to all of your favorite devices, we promise."  At the very least, they seem to recognize the issue/concern among some of the player base.


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 5, 2010)

Given that they're locked to Silverlight, at least for now, they would be lying if they promised anything with respect to mobile devices.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Nov 5, 2010)

Ryujin said:


> Given that they're locked to Silverlight, at least for now, they would be lying if they promised anything with respect to mobile devices.



 This is nonsense, they are using Silverlight for now, that does not prevent them from developing other UI. Most of the application will not need to be recoded since that part sits on the server. The UI can be a native iPhone app as easily as a Silverlight component or an HTML 5 UI

I reckon they went Silverlight because it filtted in with existing expertiese and they were in a hurry. Once they have rolled out a decent amount of functionality there is every incentive and little reason not to go back and create clients in different platforms to fill in the gaps.


----------



## Riastlin (Nov 5, 2010)

Ryujin said:


> Given that they're locked to Silverlight, at least for now, they would be lying if they promised anything with respect to mobile devices.




Not necessarily.  They've merely stated that the online CB that is coming out on November 16 uses Silverlight.  That doesn't mean they are not already working on versions for mobile devices.  In either event, they merely stated in Ampersand that they are looking into hitting the mobile market.  I was simply pointing out that this certainly wasn't a promise because of the common belief among many gamers that anything even remotely suggested as being worked on by a company is a promise that it will in fact come out.  Personally, I've always taken the approach that nothing should be considered a promise until its actually out, and will spend my money accordingly.

/shrug


----------



## drothgery (Nov 5, 2010)

Ryujin said:


> Given that they're locked to Silverlight, at least for now, they would be lying if they promised anything with respect to mobile devices.




Granted, Windows Phone 7 hasn't launched in the US yet (or just did this week), but Silverlight definitely works there. iOS and Android are another story (and WotC definitely wouldn't bother with Blackberry).


----------



## falcarrion (Nov 5, 2010)

evilref said:


> And this ladies and gentlemen is a text-book example of flawed logic and broken reasoning.
> 
> Cows are green, grass is white indeed.




Is it flawed logic or looking outside the box?
Why wouldn't they push the essential line.
We are already seeing examples of essential monsters.
The essential books are formatted in a more friendly e reader and tablet format.
If they wish to go that way.

I guess I better get painting those cows green and bleaching the grass white...


----------



## mudbunny (Nov 5, 2010)

Ryujin said:


> Given that they're locked to Silverlight, at least for now, they would be lying if they promised anything with respect to mobile devices.




The front end of the CB is in Silverlight. The Compendium uses something else. They are not going to force everything into Silverlight. They are going to use the programming language that is appropriate for what they want to do.


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 5, 2010)

ardoughter said:


> This is nonsense, they are using Silverlight for now, that does not prevent them from developing other UI. Most of the application will not need to be recoded since that part sits on the server. The UI can be a native iPhone app as easily as a Silverlight component or an HTML 5 UI
> 
> I reckon they went Silverlight because it filtted in with existing expertiese and they were in a hurry. Once they have rolled out a decent amount of functionality there is every incentive and little reason not to go back and create clients in different platforms to fill in the gaps.




Nonsense? I hardly think so. Given that it seems to have taken them at least 2.5 months to build something around what was already a compatible framework, how long would we be looking at for a complete rebuild in some other technology?


----------



## falcarrion (Nov 5, 2010)

Jhaelen said:


> Here's what's stopping them: Business acumen.
> 
> It wouldn't offer any advantage and only serve to alienate a large part of the customer base.




But it does. The youger generations. And thats the market they want.
Didn't they alienate a large part of their customer base when going to to 4ed.

How many Red boxes do you think will go to old gamers compared to younger and new games for xmas?


----------



## renau1g (Nov 5, 2010)

drothgery said:


> (and WotC definitely wouldn't bother with Blackberry).




 Take that #1 smart phone. I know, I know, corporate users, blah, blah, blah.


----------



## renau1g (Nov 5, 2010)

falcarrion said:


> How many Red boxes do you think will go to old gamers compared to younger and new games for xmas?




Hmmm... well I think the buyer of those boxes may be closer to mostly older gamers, perhaps buying for their kids, or those who have the nostalgia whilst shopping for their kids gifts at Wal-Mart or Target and see the red box.


----------



## abyssaldeath (Nov 5, 2010)

falcarrion said:


> Is it flawed logic or looking outside the box?



It's not looking outside the box. It's flawed logic or looking in someone else's box.


> Why wouldn't they push the essential line.



Because the Essentials line consists of 10 products. One of the first books that is going to come out after the Essential stuff is done is going to be reprinting 5 of the pre-E style classes with the current updates.


> We are already seeing examples of essential monsters.



Essentials monsters being pretty much like regular monsters except with better formating and the MM3 math.


> The essential books are formatted in a more friendly e reader and tablet format.
> If they wish to go that way.



This is pretty much the only thing from Essentials that is here to stay.


----------



## renau1g (Nov 5, 2010)

The only problem I have with essentials is now Dragon material will be split even further up trying to support all the "non-essentials" classes and now all the new classes. That would be the same with any new glut of classes though so it's not essentials specific.


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 5, 2010)

renau1g said:


> The only problem I have with essentials is now Dragon material will be split even further up trying to support all the "non-essentials" classes and now all the new classes. That would be the same with any new glut of classes though so it's not essentials specific.




It might serve to flesh out Dungeon and Dragon to the point that people stop complaining about their decline though.


----------



## renau1g (Nov 5, 2010)

ONe can only hope.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Nov 5, 2010)

Ryujin said:


> Nonsense? I hardly think so. Given that it seems to have taken them at least 2.5 months to build something around what was already a compatible framework, how long would we be looking at for a complete rebuild in some other technology?



 My point is that there is no need for a complete rebuild. There was probably a complete rebuild required for the new CB as it would appear that the rushed nature of the old CB would not cope with Essentials. 
The Compendium and the CB almost certainly share server side components and the Compendium looks like its traditional ASP (which is served to the browser as HTML and javascript) and the new Character Builder is Silverlight.

So only the UI needs to be rebuilt all the server components can be re-used.


----------



## falcarrion (Nov 6, 2010)

abyssaldeath said:


> It's not looking outside the box. It's flawed logic or looking in someone else's box.
> Because the Essentials line consists of 10 products. One of the first books that is going to come out after the Essential stuff is done is going to be reprinting 5 of the pre-E style classes with the current updates.
> Essentials monsters being pretty much like regular monsters except with better formating and the MM3 math.
> 
> This is pretty much the only thing from Essentials that is here to stay.




Just because you disagree with me doesn't make it flawed logic.
If they reprint 5 of the pre-E style classes will this not end up under the Essential line? Just look at the Essential monsters.


----------



## evilref (Nov 6, 2010)

falcarrion said:


> Just because you disagree with me doesn't make it flawed logic.
> If they reprint 5 of the pre-E style classes will this not end up under the Essential line? Just look at the Essential monsters.




The time it takes to show how an argument uses flawed logic is notably longer than the time it takes to make it in the first place.

Your arguments make use of a number of rhetorical fallacies. The primary and most obvious one is the slippery slope but you’ve also gone into Post Hoc, Composition, confusing cause and effect, leaping to a conclusion, etc. All of the above done without advancing any actual supporting clauses for your conclusions. This is why it’s flawed logic (and bad reasoning for that matter).




falcarrion said:


> This could be the begining to the end of the core book rules. Nothing is stopping them from stopping support for the core books and only supporting Essentials and darksun. And with the new CB, it will be very easy to do. 6 months down the line they could just say " We have decided to only support Essentials and Darksun. So all content to the core books is being removed from the website. So if you want to play 4e, buy the Essential line or subscribe to the website."




  By starting with the ‘this could be’ you’re making a claim without any substantiation. You then go on to add a good deal to this hypothetical argument, again with nothing to actually support it. You’re advancing a conclusion without any causal relationship to..well, anything other than itself.
  Let’s try this ‘falcarrion could be an alien. Nothing is stopping him from coming from another planet. And with advanced alien technology he could take over the world. So if you want to live, go build a nuclear bunker’.
  Obviously I made it extremely implausible but the actual point follows the same line, with the same lack of supporting evidence.

  So, breaking the above down.

_‘Nothing is stopping them from stopping support for…’_

  Well they’ve made statements that they’re not going to. And they have products on their release lists for next year that would suggest the reverse. But, absolutely, nothing is stopping them from doing so. Just as nothing is stopping them from discontinuing D&D entirely, o relaunching the original chainmail rules or… There are thousands of things that they don’t have anything to ‘stop’ them from doing. Just because there’s nothing to stop a company from doing something…doesn’t mean they’re going to do it.
  As for all content being removed, they’ve left 3.5 material up for..a long time. I highly doubt they’re going to remove everything for the core books. Not least as that would require removing swathes of dragon magazines which would be time consuming and reduce the value of their products.
  They’re also still selling the books, so they’d have to write them down as a loss. Which companies can do…but they don’t like doing it unless there’s a tax reason to do so. All in all this paragraph is notably flawed.




falcarrion said:


> Lets face it. If the CB was revamped to handle Essentials thats the line they are going to push. And all the core book stuff will gather dust. Like your 3.5, 3.0, 2nd ed, and AD&D 1 ed. A flick of the wrist and no more support for the core books.




  Once again you’re making rhetorical fallacies. Second sentence you begin with ‘If’. ‘If the earth is flat, then I would walk off the end of it’. Here we have an unsubstantiated proposition which you then use to draw your conclusion. What’s more the cause does not follow the effect. 
  And the rest of the paragraph continues in a similar manner.




falcarrion said:


> So be smart and down load the CB as it is now and store it. It may very well be the last Core rules stuff you will see. From here on out support for Essentials will be there main focus.




  A nice dose of appeal to fear and again an unsupported conclusion.

  I’m not going to touch the second post as it didn’t actually support your argument, just made some unrelated statements.


  And the above is why I argued you were using flawed logic. I should have made a stronger argument about the excess of rhetorical fallacies but I was focused on the logical flaws initially.


----------



## falcarrion (Nov 6, 2010)

What you call flawed logic could very well happen.
Logicaly a bumble bee should not be able to fly but it does.
You can write a 200 page report of why my logic is flawed, but that doesn't mean it is. It is what it is, a possability.


----------



## renau1g (Nov 6, 2010)

Well he is right to download it now if you want it because they (wotc) did say they wouldn't offer it as a download once the new builder goes live.


----------



## abyssaldeath (Nov 6, 2010)

falcarrion said:


> What you call flawed logic could very well happen.
> Logicaly a bumble bee should not be able to fly but it does.
> You can write a 200 page report of why my logic is flawed, but that doesn't mean it is. It is what it is, a possability.



Do you... Do you know what logic means?


----------



## Mad Hamish (Nov 6, 2010)

falcarrion said:


> What you call flawed logic could very well happen.
> Logicaly a bumble bee should not be able to fly but it does.
> You can write a 200 page report of why my logic is flawed, but that doesn't mean it is. It is what it is, a possability.




a) That's aerodynamics rather than logic
b) from wikipedia
"It is believed that the calculations which purported to show that bumblebees cannot fly are based upon a simplified linear treatment of oscillating aerofoils. The method assumes small amplitude oscillations without flow separation. This ignores the effect of dynamic stall, an airflow separation inducing a large vortex above the wing, which briefly produces several times the lift of the aerofoil in regular flight. More sophisticated aerodynamic analysis shows that the bumblebee can fly because its wings encounter dynamic stall in every oscillation cycle.

Additionally, John Maynard Smith a noted naturalist with a strong background in aeronautics, has pointed out that bumblebees would not be expected to sustain flight, as they would need to generate too much power given their tiny wing area. However, in aerodynamics experiments with other insects he found that viscosity at the scale of small insects meant that even their small wings can move a very large volume of air relative to the size, and this reduces the power required to sustain flight by an order of magnitude"


----------



## catsclaw227 (Nov 6, 2010)

Pseudopsyche said:


> It's not clear to me where Microsoft is going with Silverlight.  My impression, which could easily be wrong, is that they will support it or a version of it with Windows 7 Phone, "but HTML is the only true cross platform solution for everything, including (Apple’s) iOS platform" according to the guy in charge of their server and tools business.




I am not sure if this has been mentioned yet, I didn't read the next 6-7 pages yet, but the quote about their "strategy shift" with regards to Silverlight was taken way out of context.  

Scott Guthrie, Corporate Vice President in the Microsoft Developer Division, and a serious developer himself clarified things here.



			
				Scott Guthrie said:
			
		

> Over the last week there has been a lot of confusion/concern about Silverlight that occurred from an interview given at the PDC conference last week.  A few days ago Bob Muglia (President of our Server and Tools Division) posted a blog post on the Silverlight Team blog that helped clarify what he said in the interview that caused the controversy.  You can read his post here.
> 
> Three of the things that he explicitly said in the interview (and which were reported in the article - but unfortunately lost in the public reaction to it) were:
> 
> ...


----------



## falcarrion (Nov 6, 2010)

abyssaldeath said:


> Do you... Do you know what logic means?




Listen if you want to make this personal go right a head.
I came here to this thread to dicuss the character builder.
And to read what others have to say.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Nov 6, 2010)

falcarrion said:


> I came here to this thread to dicuss the character builder.



Well, then discuss the Character Builder as it is... and stop discussing the complete removal of all 4E material that you suggest WotC is planning for the Character Builder.  Because you are basically just making stuff up when you do.


----------



## Morrus (Nov 6, 2010)

No Name said:


> How is this change going to make things better for me?I guess the point is WotC thinks this move will net them more cash. It's not about making the game more enjoyable for me.




It will keep folks on WotC's site rather than elsewhere.  It's a small step towards doing all your online gaming at wizards.com.


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 6, 2010)

falcarrion said:


> What you call flawed logic could very well happen.
> Logicaly a bumble bee should not be able to fly but it does.
> You can write a 200 page report of why my logic is flawed, but that doesn't mean it is. It is what it is, a possability.




That shows a flaw in the logic, an incomplete understanding, not a flaw in the bee.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 6, 2010)

Ryujin said:


> It might serve to flesh out Dungeon and Dragon to the point that people stop complaining about their decline though.




Uh... no.

Here's easy bet #1.

Essentials is the new D&D. Old class support? Yeah. I'll gladly eat crow but not going to happen. We'll see more essential versions of these classes.

Now I'm curious if the supposed Bladesinger from the upcoming FR neverwinter nights thing is going to be a new class or the essential version of the swordmage.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Nov 6, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> Uh... no.
> 
> Here's easy bet #1.
> 
> ...



 I agree but not for the reasons I believe your are proposing it. There are 416 fighter powers in the Compendium right now of which 41 are from essentials, I do not believe the older class formats need much more support right now.


----------



## renau1g (Nov 6, 2010)

Tell that to the Rune Priests


----------



## DracoSuave (Nov 6, 2010)

falcarrion said:


> Logicaly a bumble bee should not be able to fly but it does.




I don't take lessons in logic from someone who does not present that if something does occur, then it can occur. 

Moreover, what you're meaning here is science.

And science is pretty clear that if hypothesis states an observable phenomenon is not possible, but said phenomenon does actually occur, then the hypothesis is disproven.

The reason I point this out is because defending an appeal to emotion, framing it as logic, and then erroneously saying that because logic can produce an incorrect conclusion in an unrelated case that therefore your appeal to emotion can produce a correct result in a completely different context is, itself...

I'd use a metaphor for how full of holes your logic is, and compare it to swiss cheese, except swiss cheese actually contains cheese, and therefore has some substance and flavor, whereas your logic does not contain anything but hole.


----------



## DracoSuave (Nov 6, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> Essentials is the new D&D. Old class support? Yeah. I'll gladly eat crow but not going to happen. We'll see more essential versions of these classes.




*I'll take this bet.*

Specifically, that old classes won't be supported.  I believe there will be support for old classes and new classes.


----------



## No Name (Nov 6, 2010)

Morrus said:


> It will keep folks on WotC's site rather than elsewhere. It's a small step towards doing all your online gaming at wizards.com.



When it comes to D&D, I prefer to stay offline. I have no problems with the other players at the table using dice rollers, laptops, etc. I just like to play the old school way. However, making characters with the CB is pure awesome sauce. I hate that they think online only is the way to go with it. As long as my way of doing D&D doesn't go the way of the dinosaur, I'm ok with with the digital initiative thing.


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 6, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> Uh... no.
> 
> Here's easy bet #1.
> 
> ...




Except that the existence of the new classes, that are nominally tied to the old ones as well, creates the possibility for supporting old and new at the same time. Fighter feats, for example, can either be macro (class wide), or apply to a specific subset based on the possession of a class feature (marks, etc.).


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 7, 2010)

DracoSuave said:


> *I'll take this bet.*
> 
> Specifically, that old classes won't be supported.  I believe there will be support for old classes and new classes.




Sounds good to me. When I say old classes, I mean PHB, PHB2, and PHB3. Hell, we'll throw unessentiallized verisons of Assassin, Swordmage and Artificer too.

As soon as the new book comes out by WoTC next year, it's over for the non-essentiallized classes. WoTC will not want to split the fan base, especially with books that are no longer being printed, and despite their claims to the countrary, will probably never be printed again.

I say cut off point... March.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 7, 2010)

Ryujin said:


> Except that the existence of the new classes, that are nominally tied to the old ones as well, creates the possibility for supporting old and new at the same time. Fighter feats, for example, can either be macro (class wide), or apply to a specific subset based on the possession of a class feature (marks, etc.).




Same could go for races too. My point is that all development will be going towards the 'essentialized' bits. Anything that falls out for older material will be crumbs from the plate of essentials.


----------



## Darkness (Nov 7, 2010)

*Alright, let's all stay respectful of our fellow posters. Disagree all you want, but don't make it personal. Also, don't invite someone to attack you. Thanks.*


----------



## Bagpuss (Nov 8, 2010)

darjr said:


> I've had yearly subscriptions only, with my only lapse to test and see if I fell out of the DDI group on the WOTC boards.




Did you?


----------



## Bagpuss (Nov 8, 2010)

falcarrion said:


> Logicaly a bumble bee should not be able to fly but it does.
> You can write a 200 page report of why my logic is flawed, but that doesn't mean it is. It is what it is, a possability.




Actually logically it can fly, because it does. The myth about the Bumblebee not being able to fly was down a flawed application of the to the laws of aerodynamics and not logic.


----------



## eamon (Nov 8, 2010)

Bagpuss said:


> Actually logically it can fly, because it does. The myth about the Bumblebee not being able to fly was down a flawed application of the to the laws of aerodynamics and not logic.



Wikipedia (as usual), has a large paragraph examining the origin of this myth. In short, it's speculated that this originated in 1934 when two frenchmen calculated that a bumblebee can't fly - the context implying _can't fly_ _in the same way an airplane does_. Of course, summarizing that as "ZOMG physics says bumblebee flight is unpossibly!!1one!" is much more fun.

Somehow, this reminds me of rules laywering: Context, what's that?


----------



## Jhaelen (Nov 9, 2010)

eamon said:


> In short, it's speculated that this originated in 1934 when two frenchmen calculated that a bumblebee can't fly - the context implying _can't fly_ _in the same way an airplane does_. Of course, summarizing that as "ZOMG physics says bumblebee flight is unpossibly!!1one!" is much more fun.



In other words, yet another example of the Science News Cycle


----------



## Shazman (Nov 9, 2010)

No Name said:


> How is this change going to make things better for me?
> 
> The way our group is setup now isn't going to change. Two of us in the gaming group are subscribers, although that may change. And only the two of us own any books or minis. The rest of the group will now store their characters on one or both of our accounts. And they still won't subscribe. So there's no real difference there. Other than needing internet. So it's a little more restrictive. Not good for me, I'm not a fan of "restrictive."
> 
> ...




There's a benefit. To WotC, not the customer.  I hope that they lose enough subscriptions over this online tools only nonsense that they start letting people update the old CB with subscriptions again.


----------



## Gilladian (Nov 9, 2010)

The CB could run on a mac only if you were willing to run Windows, with all the attendant virus issues, etc...

For me, it was easier to just buy a cheapo Win system, stick it in a corner, buy a single month's subscription and download it once and use that. 

Now, I'm actually looking at getting an ongoing sub.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 9, 2010)

Shazman said:


> There's a benefit. To WotC, not the customer.  I hope that they lose enough subscriptions over this online tools only nonsense that they start letting people update the old CB with subscriptions again.




There are benefits and drawbacks for both parties involved.


----------



## Mallus (Nov 9, 2010)

My thoughts on the new online-only CB:


It's nice to see WotC experimenting with new revenue steams.


I wonder if it will work on my iPhone -- it should, right?


I wonder if the interface will be clean/easy-to-use?


It doesn't represent much of change for my group. Most of us are on-line during a session anyway.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Nov 9, 2010)

Mallus said:


> My thoughts on the new online-only CB:
> 
> 
> It's nice to see WotC experimenting with new revenue steams.
> ...



No it will not work on the iuphone as  Apple does not allow third party application frameworks on the iOS


----------



## Stumblewyk (Nov 9, 2010)

Mallus said:


> I wonder if it will work on my iPhone -- it should, right?[



 Sorry, nope.  Silverlight doesn't run on iOS.  It doesn't mean that Wizards won't some day introduce a mobile app for the online CB, but the soon-to-be released version will not run on any mobile platform except for the Windows Phones that are about to come out.


----------



## Mallus (Nov 9, 2010)

ardoughter said:


> No it will not work on the iuphone as  Apple does not allow third party application frameworks on the iOS



Thanks for the info!


----------



## erleni (Nov 9, 2010)

Mad Hamish said:


> More sophisticated aerodynamic analysis shows that the bumblebee can fly because its wings encounter dynamic stall in every oscillation cycle.




I guess that the fact that the bumblebee does actually fly gives us even a better hint...

Just joking, I'm an engineer...


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 9, 2010)

Did anyone her the new WotC Podcast. It also contains a section on the Character Builder. It cannot be denied that one of the major concerns for WotC was not merely the platform independence, but the piracy. (There was no mention at all of people sharing accounts being problematic) 

Another topic (I am late to the party)
HTML 5 will be great when it's out. But to this day, it's not finished. And currently, the different browsers like to show off how much more compatible they are with it then the others. Which for now tells us one thing - HTML 5 is not platform-independent yet. And even the "best" browsers aren't a 100 % match. I am fairly certain that wherever you get Silverlight 4, it's 100 % compatible. That might not be as much as platforms that can use parts of HTML 5, but I don't think anyone will have fun using an app that only works to 85 to 95 %. 

I'd still prefer to keep my offline-builder with off-line storage of any number of characters I care to make.


----------



## Bagpuss (Nov 9, 2010)

No Name said:


> How is this change going to make things better for me?




If you are a Mac user then the answer is yes. Otherwise the answer is no. It's actually going to make things worse, the new builder has less utility than the old one, and disappears as soon as you stop paying for it.



> I guess the point is WotC thinks this move will net them more cash. It's not about making the game more enjoyable for me.




I think the move was actually prompted for a number of reasons, most likely piracy, and problems with the older builder architecture than a simple attempt to grab more cash. Although the new model certainly is less, for more money.


----------



## renau1g (Nov 9, 2010)

Bagpuss said:


> I think the move was actually prompted for a number of reasons, most likely piracy, and problems with the older builder architecture than a simple attempt to grab more cash. Although the new model certainly is less, for more money.




Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (D&D Podcast: Monster Vault, Character Builder)

Listening to the podcast the #1 reason (or maybe just the first) that was mentioned was piracy, then it was mentioned again part way through regarding iplay4e. Oh and they briefly touched on Mac support.


----------



## Grabuto138 (Nov 9, 2010)

Bagpuss said:


> Otherwise the answer is no. It's actually going to make things worse, the new builder has less utility than the old one, and disappears as soon as you stop paying for it.




Say's you. We play with paper character sheets. Too many gadgets are distracting, at least in our game. At most we keep my netbook around to use the Compendium (mostly because, thanks to the DDi, I have not had to buy all the books I use.)

Tranfering characters from my desktop to my laptop, from my friend's computer to my computer, etc. is a pain. Having everything in the "cloud" is an advantage for us.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 9, 2010)

Grabuto138 said:


> Say's you. We play with paper character sheets. Too many gadgets are distracting, at least in our game. At most we keep my netbook around to use the Compendium (mostly because, thanks to the DDi, I have not had to buy all the books I use.)
> 
> Tranfering characters from my desktop to my laptop, from my friend's computer to my computer, etc. is a pain. Having everything in the "cloud" is an advantage for us.




Couldn't you just email the files back and forth... and with no export function out the gate how is this any more convenient since you will all have to create the characters under the same account.  In fact maybe I'm just not understanding what issue this actually solved for you?  Why did you all have to transfer these characters back and forth if the sheets were printed up?


----------



## Scribble (Nov 9, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Couldn't you just email the files back and forth... and with no export function out the gate how is this any more convenient since you will all have to create the characters under the same account.  In fact maybe I'm just not understanding what issue this actually solved for you?  Why did you all have to transfer these characters back and forth if the sheets were printed up?




Dunno about him, but I know in my games there were a number of times someone forgot to bring their newly leveled character, or just forgot the copy of their character in general.

Having it in the cloud would have meant they could just log on, and print it out, as opposed to re-doing the character before the game.


----------



## Bagpuss (Nov 9, 2010)

Grabuto138 said:


> Tranfering characters from my desktop to my laptop, *from my friend's computer to my computer*, etc. is a pain. Having everything in the "cloud" is an advantage for us.




Except currently there is no sharing in the cloud, even after export is introduce the only way of sharing will be exporting and re-importing so the same as things are now.

Sure if and when they introduce sharing character between accounts their will be some added value. There is a slight amount of added value in that you can access your character anywhere (except many popular mobile devices) without having to install the builder.

But I hardly think that balances the number of features that have been removed, the 20 character limit, the lack of any form of sharing, or the fact it all disappears as soon as you stop forking over cash, etc.

The vast majority of the benefits (at this point) are to WotC, there is very little benefit to the customers (except Mac users) at this time. However I seriously hope that this isn't the only web-tool they were talking about when they spoke about new web-tools a couple of months ago. If they come soon and by soon I mean the standard English meaning of the word, not the WotC meaning, then it could work out better in the long term.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 9, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Dunno about him, but I know in my games there were a number of times someone forgot to bring their newly leveled character, or just forgot the copy of their character in general.
> 
> Having it in the cloud would have meant they could just log on, and print it out, as opposed to re-doing the character before the game.




This wasn't the issue he brought up though. 

As to your issue how is it not just as easy for each player to have a copy of their character at the house of whoever hosts the game, either on a USB or as a file that you email (or even just save in your own email account ) when you finish creating/leveling up your character?  This just doesn't seem like "added" value so much as a different way of doing things.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 9, 2010)

Imaro said:


> This wasn't the issue he brought up though.




Hence why I said "dunno about him" 



> As to your issue how is it not just as easy for each player to have a copy of their character at the house of whoever hosts the game, either on a USB or as a file that you email (or even just save in your own email account ) when you finish creating/leveling up?




Remembering to bring the file, or email the file is the same as remembering to bring the character in the first place.

In the cloud based situation, you don't have to remember anything... (except your login info I guess. ) Just log on, and print.

I wasn't saying there weren't ways to digitally transfer characters from one place to another- only that in the instances of my game where someone forgot their character, having the character in the cloud would have solved it, more quickly/easily then we did.

It's a personal "This is what happened to me, and how it would effect me." situation.  It is by no means universal.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 9, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Hence why I said "dunno about him"
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Cool, perhaps I was trying to hard to draw a connection between it and the post of mine that you quoted. Though even in your situation, server outages would be a problem as well.


----------



## Grabuto138 (Nov 10, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Couldn't you just email the files back and forth... and with no export function out the gate how is this any more convenient since you will all have to create the characters under the same account. In fact maybe I'm just not understanding what issue this actually solved for you? Why did you all have to transfer these characters back and forth if the sheets were printed up?




That is what we do. Its a minor hassle and if someone forgets to email it, or more likely wants to make the character with group input, they just recreate it on my computer before we play. And then I have to remember if the authoritative version is on my desktop, my laptop, as attachment in my email or whatever.

Nothing is perfect. I suppose we could even fax the character sheets. Even better, jump on my computer, type in a user name and password and take care of your business.
Obviously if my connection is down, and if there is no character sheet available for manual updates then someone has to bust out the pencil and paper and do it old school. 

Edit: Just to be clear, I was responding to a definitive "the answer in no" statement. I understand why some people are annoyed at the change but speaking only for me and my group I much prefer a web-based solution. It helps that we are all subscribers (aside for Mac guy) and we tend the buy books and otherwise support the game, WOTC and the local game store.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 10, 2010)

Grabuto138 said:


> That is what we do. Its a minor hassle and if someone forgets to email it, or more likely wants to make the character with group input, they just recreate it on my computer before we play. And then I have to remember if the authoritative version is on my desktop, my laptop, as attachment in my email or whatever.
> 
> Nothing is perfect. I suppose we could even fax the character sheets. Even better, jump on my computer, type in a user name and password and take care of your business.
> Obviously if my connection is down, and if there is no character sheet available for manual updates then someone has to bust out the pencil and paper and do it old school. Life ain't prefect.




Well personally I didn't find having a single folder on my computer with everyone's sheet (that we updated when the party leveled up) all that hard, confusing or time consuming... and I definitely felt it was a slight inconvenience that was worth it to actually own the software I was paying for... but that's just me.


----------



## Grabuto138 (Nov 10, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Well personally I didn't find having a single folder on my computer with everyone's sheet (that we updated when the party leveled up) all that hard, confusing or time consuming... and I definitely felt it was a slight inconvenience that was worth it to actually own the software I was paying for... but that's just me.




I never claimed to be particularly bright or competent. Given my limited facilities, managing the characters for alternating campaigns and one-offs is hard. Not as hard as keeping score in bowling or arithmetic, but harder than I like. I would prefer if everyone could just log in and access their characters without all the emailing, plugging in flash drives and fiddling around. Especially since I do a lot of long-distance collaboration in real life so I am trained to expect everything I need and want readily available so-long as I have internet access.

To your second point, I think we are different plans. I got the software for free and pay a monthly fee for access to updates, a Rules Compendium and some online content. You should check it out, at $5.95 per month it is a pretty sweet deal. http://www.wizards.com/dnd/subscription.aspx


----------



## Minifig (Nov 10, 2010)

See.. where I play, the DM doesn't HAVE internet access..

So the offline builder was wonderful when we all wanted to level up and see what we got/get.

Sadly... this'll screw that all up.


----------



## tentfox (Nov 10, 2010)

Minifig said:


> See.. where I play, the DM doesn't HAVE internet access..
> 
> So the offline builder was wonderful when we all wanted to level up and see what we got/get.
> 
> Sadly... this'll screw that all up.




Might give him incentive to get the internet


----------



## Minifig (Nov 10, 2010)

Sure.. if they could afford it.


----------



## Bagpuss (Nov 10, 2010)

Grabuto138 said:


> To your second point, I think we are different plans. I got the software for free and pay a monthly fee for access to updates, a Rules Compendium and some online content. You should check it out, at $5.95 per month it is a pretty sweet deal. http://www.wizards.com/dnd/subscription.aspx




That deals not available any more, well not after the Nov 16th anyway. And technically he was sort of correct, as once you paid for the update with your monthly fee you got to keep that, after the 16th you don't.

The only thing you get to keep that you pay for after the 16th are hardcopy (or PDF files) of characters you've built with the software you rent and Dragon and Dungeon PDFs.


----------



## evilref (Nov 10, 2010)

Bagpuss said:


> The only thing you get to keep that you pay for after the 16th are hardcopy (or PDF files) of characters you've built with the software you rent and Dragon and Dungeon PDFs.




And it's still a great deal.


----------



## Bagpuss (Nov 10, 2010)

evilref said:


> And it's still a great deal.




Perhaps that's up to individuals to decide, I think it has in some ways significantly reduced in value, Dragon and Dungeon have been on a general downhill trend, and a rented CB has less value than one you get to keep. On the other hand the content on the compendium constantly increases so it could be seen as always gaining in value.


----------



## avin (Nov 10, 2010)

I couldn't login on Wotc this morning... I'm wondering what will happen when people want to use this *wonderful* online toy and servers are offline... even allmight Blizzard servers go offline, why Wizards think they can handle it?

This is a good step for them as a company... but I wish they were humble enough to say "we are aware that this may cause some annoyance for some of you guys, but we needed to do it"...


----------



## Walking Dad (Nov 10, 2010)

DracoSuave said:


> ...
> 
> Specifically, that old classes won't be supported.  I believe there will be support for old classes and new classes.




Is the essential Weaponmaster an old or new (sub)class in your definition?

Do you think there will be new classes in the non essential style?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 10, 2010)

avin said:


> I couldn't login on Wotc this morning... I'm wondering what will happen when people want to use this *wonderful* online toy and servers are offline... even allmight Blizzard servers go offline, why Wizards think they can handle it?
> 
> This is a good step for them as a company... but I wish they were humble enough to say "we are aware that this may cause some annoyance for some of you guys, but we needed to do it"...



Well, you couldn't login, but I still get this: http://wizards.com/DnD/Error.aspx?aspxerrorpath=/dnd/Default.aspx

For over a week now, I think.  (I reported it to CS only Saturday or so, though...)

The rest of the site still works, though...


----------



## Lord Ernie (Nov 10, 2010)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Well, you couldn't login, but I still get this: http://wizards.com/DnD/Error.aspx?aspxerrorpath=/dnd/Default.aspx
> 
> For over a week now, I think.  (I reported it to CS only Saturday or so, though...)
> 
> The rest of the site still works, though...



For the record, do you share your account with any of your players? I've had the same error happen on occasion, usually when I suspect one of my players used my login to check out something in the Compendium.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 10, 2010)

Grabuto138 said:


> I never claimed to be particularly bright or competent. Given my limited facilities, managing the characters for alternating campaigns and one-offs is hard. Not as hard as keeping score in bowling or arithmetic, but harder than I like. I would prefer if everyone could just log in and access their characters without all the emailing, plugging in flash drives and fiddling around. Especially since I do a lot of long-distance collaboration in real life so I am trained to expect everything I need and want readily available so-long as I have internet access.




I'm sorry you took my post as insinuating something about your level of brightness or competence... but you were the one who complained about how much of a hassle keeping up with characters was... all I did was state that for me... it wasn't hard or confusing to keep the characters in a folder on my computer, different strokes for different folks I guess. 

It will be interesting to see if WotC's servers can handle the load placed on them by numerous logins at the same time (and this has nothing to do with whether the internet is available to you or not), as I definitely suspect there will be a spike in usage on the weekends. If they can it'll be gravy for you, otherwise there won't be anything you can do to retrieve your character or use any of their tools.... except for the MB until it goes online

EDIT:  On a side note, I also wonder what the performance of this app will be like during peak times like the weekend, again I hope WotC has accounted for this.




Grabuto138 said:


> To your second point, I think we are different plans. I got the software for free and pay a monthly fee for access to updates, a Rules Compendium and some online content. You should check it out, at $5.95 per month it is a pretty sweet deal. http://www.wizards.com/dnd/subscription.aspx



 
Puh-tay-toe, puh-tah-toe... are we really being this pendantic now. If so... unless you can actually create at least 1 character from level 1 to level 30... I would claim what you got for free was a demo version of the CB, the same as you would with a demo version of a videogame... No one I know would claim they got the software for free and paid for an update with a demo version of a videogame... that is getting a limited version of the software and then receiving the full software by purchasing it.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 10, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Cool, perhaps I was trying to hard to draw a connection between it and the post of mine that you quoted. Though even in your situation, server outages would be a problem as well.




Sorry you couldn't make the connection... Yes server outages will be annoying. 



avin said:


> I couldn't login on Wotc this morning... I'm wondering what will happen when people want to use this *wonderful* online toy and servers are offline... even allmight Blizzard servers go offline, why Wizards think they can handle it?




I'm guessing they will flip out and post angry posts, then when the site comes back up they'll continue on as normal. 



> This is a good step for them as a company... but I wish they were humble enough to say "we are aware that this may cause some annoyance for some of you guys, but we needed to do it"...




They kind of did in the podcast. 



Bagpuss said:


> Perhaps that's up to individuals to decide, I think it has in some ways significantly reduced in value, Dragon and Dungeon have been on a general downhill trend, and a rented CB has less value than one you get to keep. On the other hand the content on the compendium constantly increases so it could be seen as always gaining in value.




It's one of those weird states right now I think... For some people it's a significant decline in value... For others it's an increase... 

My friend on a Mac is excited.

Another friend of mine is annoyed since he used to do the one month download thing.

I have a yearly subscription, only ever access the CB from locations with internet access, and don't make a ton of characters, so I don't anticipate a huge change in my functioning, but at the same time, now my subscription no longer gets me downloadable content...

But... since I've maintained a yearly subscription, and have until next October for this one to be up... It doesn't really impact me much.

What they REALLY need to do though is start adding to the number of tools they offer pretty quickly to replace that downloadable content.

If they're going to move from a digital content provider to fully a service provider, then give me more services to replace the Downloadable content my subscription once offered.

From things they've said though, I get the feeling it will be offered relatively quickly.



Imaro said:


> Puh-tay-toe, puh-tah-toe... are we really being this pendantic now. If so... unless you can actually create at least 1 character from level 1 to level 30... I would claim what you got for free was a demo version of the CB, the same as you would with a demo version of a videogame... No one I know would claim they got the software for free and paid for an update with a demo version of a videogame... that is getting a limited version of the software and then receiving the full software by purchasing it.




Really depends on how you look at it.  It's not like you had to pay an extra fee to get the CB. Your subscription money went towards getting the downloadable content behind the pay wall. Without that, the CB would be an empty database. (I mean you still have the current DB, but it's less useful now without the constant updates...)

Before they sold you the digital content for a certain fee. Now they charge you a monthly fee for access to that content. 

Before they sold a product, now they sell admission.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 10, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Sorry you couldn't make the connection... Yes server outages will be annoying.




I'm not sure if you are being snarky or not... so I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that I really did miss some connection to my post earlier... so please explain it to me, because as I saw it, I was addressing a different posters stated issues... which were not the same as yours... yet you quoted me and stated a totally different issue. So I figured it was just Scribble stating why he liked an online CB (though I'm still not sure why you quoted me instead of just stating your reason.)... now maybe I'm missing the connection so I'm asking you to explain it... unless there wasn't one and you are being snarky.




Scribble said:


> Really depends on how you look at it. It's not like you had to pay an extra fee to get the CB. Your subscription money went towards getting the downloadable content behind the pay wall. Without that, the CB would be an empty database. (I mean you still have the current DB, but it's less useful now without the constant updates...)
> 
> Before they sold you the digital content for a certain fee. Now they charge you a monthly fee for access to that content.
> 
> Before they sold a product, now they sell admission.




So you are agreeing with me... before I bought the software and owned it (and please lets not pretend the necessary data for the software to function is not part of a software package.)... now I rent the software and have no rights to it once WotC decides to no longer offer the service.


----------



## renau1g (Nov 10, 2010)

Scribble said:


> What they REALLY need to do though is start adding to the number of tools they offer pretty quickly to replace that downloadable content.
> 
> If they're going to move from a digital content provider to fully a service provider, then give me more services to replace the Downloadable content my subscription once offered.
> 
> From things they've said though, I get the feeling it will be offered relatively quickly.




This. If we get a working MB and a campaign management tool  that would be nice. An integrated encounter builder and dungeon builder is nice too. VTT is a long-term desire of mine as well. These may compensate for the loss of permanence that I had with the "classic" CB.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 10, 2010)

Imaro said:


> I'm not sure if you are being snarky or not... so I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that I really did miss some connection to my post earlier... so please explain it to me, because as I saw it, I was addressing a different posters stated issues... which were not the same as yours... yet you quoted me and stated a totally different issue. So I figured it was just Scribble stating why he liked an online CB (though I'm still not sure why you quoted me instead of just stating your reason.)... now maybe I'm missing the connection so I'm asking you to explain it... unless there wasn't one and you are being snarky.




Well- I wasn't being snarky, but I don't feel like going back, so we can just move on, or you can go back and try to figure it out if you want- I don't care.



> So you are agreeing with me... before I bought the software and owned it (and please lets not pretend the necessary data for the software to function is not part of a software package.)... now I rent the software and have no rights to it once WotC decides to no longer offer the service.




The software functions without the data- just like any database functions without data. It just looses utility with no data.  Each month, you downloaded more data, not the program, nor did you ever pay more money to get the program.

So it seems perfectly fine to view it as paying for data, and getting software for free.

And yes... WoTC has moved from a digital content provider (providing downloadable content to use within the CB) to a service that provides access to the full library of D&D content and tools to make using it easier.

They haven't deleted the old CB off your computer, nor have they deleted the info within it, so everything you paid for to this point is still yours. 

If you don't want to pay admission to the D&D library from this point on, cancel your subscription, and enjoy what you paid for.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 10, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Well- I wasn't being snarky, but I don't feel like going back, so we can just move on, or you can go back and try to figure it out if you want- I don't care.




Ok...If it's not an important enough point for you to take the time to clarify it beyond one-liners... it's not important enough for me to be concerned with.




Scribble said:


> The software functions without the data- just like any database functions without data. It just looses utility with no data. Each month, you downloaded more data, not the program, nor did you ever pay more money to get the program.




Uhm... what? The CB software doesn't function without the data, the whole point is that the software and data are part and parcel of the same software package. It's akin to saying... a videogame functions without any of the necessary data... it doesn't and just because you can purchase more data (you know like expansions for videogames) doesn't mean the software didn't cost you money when you first bought the full game. 



Scribble said:


> So it seems perfectly fine to view it as paying for data, and getting software for free.




Ok, if you want to view it that way fine... but let's look at how WotC views it... from their FAQ...

*Q:* I am not a subscriber, how can I get the _D&D_ Character Builder? 
*A:* The application is for _D&D Insider_ subscribers only. A demo version of the application is available to non-subscribers

They clearly make a differentiation between the two "applications" and one being a demo "application" and the other being an "application" for subscribers... no mention of just upgrading data as the difference. Also form the WotC site...

"If you use the 64 bit Vista OS, please read these instructions before downloading. If your computer doesn’t have .NET 3.5 SP1, installing it directly from Microsoft here before running the Character Builder will shorten the installation process. If you have previously been using the *Beta*, we recommend that you first uninstall it.

Emphasis mine... Why do they call the demo a "Beta" version and suggest uninstalling it before installing the full version... if it's just a data upgrade? Seems to me you are getting more than just added data when you become a subscriber and download the full software. You then pay for upgrades after that initial purchase of the software.




Scribble said:


> And yes... WoTC has moved from a digital content provider (providing downloadable content to use within the CB) to a service that provides access to the full library of D&D content and tools to make using it easier.
> 
> They haven't deleted the old CB off your computer, nor have they deleted the info within it, so everything you paid for to this point is still yours.
> 
> If you don't want to pay admission to the D&D library from this point on, cancel your subscription, and enjoy what you paid for.




I'm not sure what the above is suppose to accomplish... I don't think anything you've listed above has been disputed by anyone in this thread, and I'm sure all of us know we can unsubscribe anytime we want... so what was the point of this. People are discussing how they feel about what is being implemented as of Nov. 16th and your statement above seems to be pointless in the context of that.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 10, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Ok...If it's not an important enough point for you to take the time to clarify it beyond one-liners... it's not important enough for me to be concerned with.




Right on. 



> Uhm... what? The CB software doesn't function without the data, the whole point is that the software and data are part and parcel of the same software package. It's akin to saying... a videogame functions without any of the necessary data... it doesn't and just because you can purchase more data (you know like expansions for videogames) doesn't mean the software didn't cost you money when you first bought the full game.




Sure- you don't have the ability to  get it without the data, but that doesn't mean the software wouldn't function without said data. It would just have nothing to work with. 




> Ok, if you want to view it that way fine... but let's look at how WotC views it... from their FAQ...




*Q:* I am not a subscriber, how can I get the _D&D_ Character Builder? 
*A:* The application is for _D&D Insider_ subscribers only. A demo version of the application is available to non-subscribers[/quote]

Yup, you get the application free when you subscribe to the data.



> They clearly make a differentiation between the two "applications" and one being a demo "application" and the other being an "application" for subscribers... no mention of just upgrading data as the difference. Also form the WotC site...




yes- because they provide another free demo version of the software. 



> Emphasis mine... Why do they call the demo a "Beta" version and suggest uninstalling it before installing the full version... if it's just a data upgrade? Seems to me you are getting more than just added data when you become a subscriber and download the full software. You then pay for upgrades after that initial purchase of the software.




It's not just a data upgrade. You get a free version of the real software to use with the data you are subscribing to get. The free version offered as a demo is a beta version of the other software.


All in all sure- it would be pointless to download  just the data, or just the software, and since they don't charge you for the software offering them as separate pieces would be equally pointless, but they are in reality separate pieces.

They COULD for instance sell the CB software separate from the subscription, but they don't. It comes free when you subscribe. 




> I'm not sure what the above is suppose to accomplish... I don't think anything you've listed above has been disputed by anyone in this thread, and I'm sure all of us know we can unsubscribe anytime we want... so what was the point of this. People are discussing how they feel about what is being implemented as of Nov. 16th and your statement above seems to be pointless in the context of that.




If you feel it is pointless, then ignore it, instead of trying to insult me by calling my comments pointless?


----------



## Herschel (Nov 10, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Uhm... what? The CB software doesn't function without the data, the whole point is that the software and data are part and parcel of the same software package. It's akin to saying... a videogame functions without any of the necessary data... it doesn't and just because you can purchase more data (you know like expansions for videogames) doesn't mean the software didn't cost you money when you first bought the full game.




Maybe try looking at it this way: Think of the Character Builder as a car. As a car, they gave you a cheap chassis (demo version) but you needed to buy tires, gas, stereo, oil, maintenance, etc. and need to keep doing so. 

Now you will lease the complete, nice car. They add the features, put in the gas, change the oil, rotate the tires, upgrade the whole thing every model year so and you always get to drive a new car so long as you make your payments. 

The latter actually gives you better use value for your money and gives the producing company a more consistent revenue stream.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 10, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Right on.
> Sure- you don't have the ability to get it without the data, but that doesn't mean the software wouldn't function without said data. It would just have nothing to work with.




... You don't have the ability to get it without the data... yet the software is free... and the data isn't.... That's some pretty fuzzy logic.





Scribble said:


> Yup, you get the application free when you subscribe to the data.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Again... ...WHAT??? SO even though I have to pay to receive this software (the full version)... in reality it's free...Wow, just wow, there are some pretty amazing logic gymnastics goingon here. I guess if it really was free there would be something on their website like "Free with subscription to DDI... the CB software... but not the data." ... Really?



Scribble said:


> All in all sure- it would be pointless to download just the data, or just the software, and since they don't charge you for the software offering them as separate pieces would be equally pointless, but they are in reality separate pieces.




Yeah...ok...so the software is free but the data is not... even though you have to pay to get the full software (that is in actuality free) and basic data but can get a free (diminished)version of the software and data without paying something... Uhm, yeah makes sense...right...OK... not not really.



Scribble said:


> They COULD for instance sell the CB software separate from the subscription, but they don't. It comes free when you subscribe.




But the data doesn't come free...when you subscribe... got it...





Scribble said:


> If you feel it is pointless, then ignore it, instead of trying to insult me by calling my comments pointless?




How is my addressing what you posted... not you as a poster in any way insulting you?


----------



## Imaro (Nov 10, 2010)

Herschel said:


> Maybe try looking at it this way: Think of the Character Builder as a car. As a car, they gave you a cheap chassis (demo version) but you needed to buy tires, gas, stereo, oil, maintenance, etc. and need to keep doing so.
> 
> Now you will lease the complete, nice car. They add the features, put in the gas, change the oil, rotate the tires, upgrade the whole thing every model year so and you always get to drive a new car so long as you make your payments.
> 
> The latter actually gives you better use value for your money and gives the producing company a more consistent revenue stream.




Yes, but the distinction Scribble keeps trying to make is that they originally gave you the car for free and you are only paying for ammenities... and this might be true except for the fact that you are downloading different software when using the full version... not just adding data to the software you got from the demo. His analogy doesn't hold water. I originally bought the full version software and my subscription allows me to add "options"to what I have bought when WotC releases them.

As far as your car analogy goes it doesn't fit very well as it assumes you will want to upgrade your car eventually to a new model or different car... rpg's don't necessarily work that way.

I mean we all know eventually 5e will be released, and many people know that they may not like 5e as much as 4e and thus the ability to keep using the CB if they want... with the options for the books they have, far outweighs the value of a Web based CB (that WotC will probably end support and usage for just like the offline one)... especially at the same price.

EDIT: Even now with the offline CB downloaded, eventually it will be lost by people, through HD crashes, accidental uninstalls, etc.  that is why WotC is not going to make the download available after Nov.16th.


----------



## Sunseeker (Nov 10, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Yes, but the distinction Scribble keeps trying to make is that they originally gave you the car for free and you are only paying for ammenities... and this might be true except for the fact that you are downloading different software when using the full version... not just adding data to the software you got from the demo. His analogy doesn't hold water. I originally bought the full version software and my subscription allows me to add "options"to what I have bought when WotC releases them.



No, originally they gave you a car that could only drive 3 miles a day, so you still had to take the bus to work.



> As far as your car analogy goes it doesn't fit very well as it assumes you will want to upgrade your car eventually to a new model or different car... rpg's don't necessarily work that way.



Planned obsolesence is not a surprisingly new tactic, and yes, even RPGs work that way.



> I mean we all know eventually 5e will be released, and many people know that they may not like 5e as much as 4e and thus the ability to keep using the CB if they want... with the options for the books they have, far outweighs the value of a Web based CB (that WotC will probably end support and usage for just like the offline one)... especially at the same price.



What WotC will likely do is release a 5E builder, a 5E dungeon tools, a 5E compendium, and you'll get that with your subscription, and slowly they'll phase out the 4E tools, and then people will sign up for the service from the beginning.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 10, 2010)

Imaro said:


> ... You don't have the ability to get it without the data... yet the software is free... and the data isn't.... That's some pretty fuzzy logic.




I can't use my broadband without a modem. 
I can't use my modem without a broadband service.

This does not make the two the same thing.

If I stopped subscribing to my data service the modem isn't going to cease doing what it does, it's not going to explode, or refuse to turn on. It just won't have any broadband to connect to.

If I give up my modem, broadband is not going to cease to exist, nor will it stop sending a signal to my house. I just won't have any way of making use of it.

Again the utility of one or the other is lessened without having both, but that does not make them the same thing.

Comcast COULD offer me a free modem when I subscribe to the data package, but instead they charge me for it. As a separate entity.

Wizards COULD charge someone for the CB when they subscribe to get the data, but they don't. The software to make use of the data comes free.


If that doesn't clarify things for you, or you're not willing to see a different perspective (remember from the start I said depending on your perspective) then I think we should just end it here.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 10, 2010)

shidaku said:


> No, originally they gave you a car that could only drive 3 miles a day, so you still had to take the bus to work.




Which would be the demo... but you download new software (thus a new car) when you pay for the full version.




shidaku said:


> Planned obsolesence is not a surprisingly new tactic, and yes, even RPGs work that way.




Didn't say it was new... doesn't mean I or many others like it. Especially when it'sthe opposite direction you originally went in.




shidaku said:


> What WotC will likely do is release a 5E builder, a 5E dungeon tools, a 5E compendium, and you'll get that with your subscription, and slowly they'll phase out the 4E tools, and then people will sign up for the service from the beginning.




Yep, only I don't think there will be a slow phase out... especially after how they handled the phasing out of the offline builder. But in the end this is exactly what many people don't want... they want a product not a service... and WotC made it even worse by offering the product originally.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 10, 2010)

Scribble said:


> I can't use my broadband without a modem.
> I can't use my modem without a broadband service.
> 
> This does not make the two the same thing.
> ...




This has no bearing on the CB being free though... you have failed to back up the assertion that you get the CB for free and pay for data updates... that is what I have a problem with... even if they are seperate entities (which I still think is stretching it) where is the notion that the CB is free backed up or even come from?

EDIT:  I have given examples that the software for the demoand the software for a DDI subscriber are different (not just different data) so when you pay... you get something different as far as software goes.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 10, 2010)

Imaro said:


> This has no bearing on the CB being free though... you have failed to back up the assertion that you get the CB for free and pay for data updates... that is what I have a problem with... even if they are seperate entities (which I still think is stretching it) where is the notion that the CB is free backed up or even come from?




The fact that you are not charged extra the first time you subscribe.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 10, 2010)

Scribble said:


> The fact that you are not charged extra the first time you subscribe.




  You aren't charged extra (beyond the sub price) for the new data, new software, mags or anything else.


----------



## Stumblewyk (Nov 10, 2010)

This whole exchange between Imaro and Scribble is a brilliant, shining example of the divide that exists between what I'm increasingly seeing as two different schools of thought on the Online CB.

(For the record, I tend to side with Scribble on this subject - I always saw my usage of the CB as getting the application for free and paying for the privilege of accessing the data through it.)

But it's clear to me that it's a distinction that some people are just never going to be able to agree on - either you think that $10.00/month (or every couple of months) is a fair price to "own" every bit of the rules catalog Wizards has released, or you think $10.00/month was a fabulous deal that you don't fault Wizards for realizing the error of their ways and reneging on.

No one's going to win that argument.  Ever.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 10, 2010)

Imaro said:


> You aren't charged extra (beyond the sub price) for the new data, new software, mags or anything else.




The magazines are kind of the same thing.

You subscribe to get the pdfs. If you don't have a way to read them, they don't disappear, or stop being what your subscription gets you, they're just not so useful to you.

I guess what confuses things is that there is no other way to view the CB data your subscribing to without the CB. Luckily (or intelligently) they offer that system for free.

They don't have to offer a pdf reader, because adobe already does that.



Stumblewyk said:


> (For the record, I tend to side with Scribble on this subject - I always saw my usage of the CB as getting the application for free and paying for the privilege of accessing the data through it.).




I didn't see it as accessing that data in the case of the CB. In the case of the CB you were getting a digital copy of that data for use within the CB.

They're no longer selling that digital downloadable data (I can understand from their point of view why not.)


----------



## Herschel (Nov 10, 2010)

I see it simply as this:
Is the character builder, etc. something you like and use?
Is it worth the monthly price of a gas station mocha and a bag of Funyons to you?

If the answers are yes, subscribe and enjoy. If not, do without, get over it and move on.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 10, 2010)

Stumblewyk said:


> This whole exchange between Imaro and Scribble is a brilliant, shining example of the divide that exists between what I'm increasingly seeing as two different schools of thought on the Online CB.
> 
> (For the record, I tend to side with Scribble on this subject - I always saw my usage of the CB as getting the application for free and paying for the privilege of accessing the data through it.)
> 
> ...




Well let me clarify, I never said I wouldn't be willing to pay more for an offline CB or even purchase it seperately from the DDI on disk and pay to update it with "patches"... in fact my major problem isn't the price... it is not being able to purchase a product as opposed to a service... and I honestly think this is where most people who have a problem with the new CB are coming from.  Honestly, I want something akin to the AD&D 2e Core Rules set... not something that will vanish when a new edition comes along.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 10, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Well let me clarify, I never said I wouldn't be willing to pay more for an offline CB or even purchase it seperately from the DDI on disk and pay to update it with "patches"... in fact my major problem isn't the price... it is not being able to purchase a product as opposed to a service... and I honestly think this is where most people who have a problem with the new CB are coming from.  Honestly, I want something akin to the AD&D 2e Core Rules set... not something that will vanish when a new edition comes along.




I would agree with you here, I think most people who have an issue with the service, don't want a service, they want a product, which is a valid desire as much as the next.

Unfortunately WoTC dopes not seem to feel that is the best way to continue in the digital marketplace... for whatever reason.


----------



## Grabuto138 (Nov 10, 2010)

Stumblewyk said:


> This whole exchange between Imaro and Scribble is a brilliant, shining example of the divide that exists between what I'm increasingly seeing as two different schools of thought on the Online CB.
> 
> (For the record, I tend to side with Scribble on this subject - I always saw my usage of the CB as getting the application for free and paying for the privilege of accessing the data through it.)
> 
> ...




I don't want to question anyone's intentions but I have to think that if a person is of the mind that they purchased a piece of stand-alone, perpetually funtional, software they are engaged in some self deception. It is just an old-timey way of doing business. The CB is something analogous to iTunes or to the download app I got from my library to check out audio books. The new CB will be analogous to Netflix. iTunes has some utility outside of the Apple Store but that is incidental to the fact that the reason it exists at all, and is free, is that it gives the user an excuse to send money to Apple. People are surely going to start playing the "yeah-but" game with the analogy but it seems pretty indisputible that with the DDi you bought a subscription to access data; you did not buy a "thing." Regardless of what you wished you were buying or pretended you were buying, the distinction between enrolling in a service and buying a product is pretty clear.) 

The CB was never sold as an independent application. You could either get the demo or subscribe to the DDi. I don't believe there was ever an option to pay a flat, one time, fee expressely for the software as one might do for Office or Photoshop.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 10, 2010)

Herschel said:


> I see it simply as this:
> Is the character builder, etc. something you like and use?
> Is it worth the monthly price of a gas station mocha and a bag of Funyons to you?
> 
> If the answers are yes, subscribe and enjoy. If not, do without, get over it and move on.




Can't most of the topics  in these forums (probably most topics in life) be brought down to... "either accept it or don't." ... but then we wouldn't have much to discuss would we?


----------



## Imaro (Nov 10, 2010)

Scribble said:


> I would agree with you here, I think most people who have an issue with the service, don't want a service, they want a product, which is a valid desire as much as the next.
> 
> Unfortunately WoTC dopes not seem to feel that is the best way to continue in the digital marketplace... for whatever reason.




Yeah, I just honestly wish they had started this way.  It's like giving someone a bite of chocolate cake that thye are going to have for dessert later... then "Surprise" you can have chocolate ice cream instead.  yeah, it's still chocolate, but man I really wanted some cake.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 10, 2010)

Grabuto138 said:


> I don't want to question anyone's intentions but I have to think that if a person is of the mind that they purchased a piece of stand-alone, perpetually funtional, software they are engaged in some self deception. It is just an old-timey way of doing business. The CB is something analogous to iTunes or to the download app I got from my library to check out audio books. The new CB will be analogous to Netflix. iTunes has some utility outside of the Apple Store but that is incidental to the fact that the reason it exists at all, and is free, is that it gives the user an excuse to send money to Apple. People are surely going to start playing the "yeah-but" game with the analogy but it seems pretty indisputible that with the DDi you bought a subscription to access data; you did not buy a "thing." Regardless of what you wished you were buying or pretended you were buying, the distinction between enrolling in a service and buying a product is pretty clear.)
> 
> The CB was never sold as an independent application. You could either get the demo or subscribe to the DDi. I don't believe there was ever an option to pay a flat, one time, fee expressely for the software as one might do for Office or Photoshop.




IMO, the original CB was more akin to a modern videogame... I buy the base game, let's say Red Dead Redemption or Fable and that software and data is mine... it resides on storage owned by myself. Now a couple months down the road they offer new missions for these games that I can pay for and download onto my HD...or not. Guess what though, I own those as well (Data and all) once I pay for them and download them onto my HD. I didn't buy Red Dead Redemption or Fable 2 to rent me access to the new missions... I may not even want the new missions...but if I do want them I can pay for them and they are added to my original game... this, IMO, is much more similar to the original CB's model.

IMO, the mistake WotC made was offering tiered subscriptions but not limiting what was accesible with them. With this type of pricing model did they really think people would pay a years price when the smarter bet was to pay for one month every couple (say 4) months at a time. I honestly wonder what they were thinking...


----------



## Scribble (Nov 10, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Yeah, I just honestly wish they had started this way.  It's like giving someone a bite of chocolate cake that thye are going to have for dessert later... then "Surprise" you can have chocolate ice cream instead.  yeah, it's still chocolate, but man I really wanted some cake.




Yeah, had they done that from the beginning it probably wouldn't have been an issue really.

I mean obviously there would still be people who wanted to buy a product as opposed to a service, but I doubt there would be as much anger over it.


From what it sounds like they didn't realize the ease of which the CB data would be pirated? Or at least didn't think it would have as much of an impact as it did?

Whatever the case... I still think they should increase the level of services they offer if they want to offer something pirates can't.


----------



## Grabuto138 (Nov 10, 2010)

Imaro said:


> The biggest flaw I see with your analogy is that I didn't pay to access the data... I have the data on my HD. This is what I'm not understanding... the data didn't reside somewhere that I couldn't access without the CB...it resides on my HD just like my character sheets do... and this same data could be, and has been, accessed by other software beyond the CB that other people have made available. Now if the original CB had been a piece of software that only worked to give me access to the data WotC kept stored on their servers (basically the same as the new CB) then I would agree... but the fact that they even had to announce this change and the language they use on their site pretty much shows that at least if WotC felt the way you assume they did... their marketing of the product (and yes it was an actual product and not a service) didn't reflect this.
> 
> IMO, the original CB was more akin to a modern videogame... I buy the base game, let's say Red Dead Redemption or Fable and that software and data is mine... it resides on storage owned by myself. Now a couple months down the road they offer new missions for these games that I can pay for and download onto my HD...or not. Guess what though, I own those as well (Data and all) once I pay for them and download them onto my HD. I didn't buy Red Dead Redemption or Fable 2 to rent me access to the new missions... I may not even want the new missions...but if I do want them I can pay for them and they are added to my original game... this, IMO, is much more similar to the original CB's model.
> 
> IMO, the mistake WotC made was offering tiered subscriptions but not limiting what was accesible with them. With this type of pricing model did they really think people would pay a years price when the smarter bet was to pay for one month every couple (say 4) months at a time. I honestly wonder what they were thinking...




I honestly sympathize because what you experienced was a product that could be updated or not at your pleasure and had utility regardless of whether or not you were subscriber. Unlike a video game, however, I would argue that this is not what you actually bought, regardless of how you experienced it. I think WOTC was pretty upfront about that fact that what they were marketing was a subscription service rather than a tangible product. They were and are selling a product called the Dungeons and Dragons Insider, and when you actually put in your credit card info it was pretty clear you were paying for a subscription not a software application. 

I do not fault anyone for doing the "1 month every 6 month" subscription thing. EULA aside I do not fault people for sharing subscriptions (though if a group shares one subscription for six people I think maybe they should consider digging through the couch cushions and comeup with, say, $2/month per person. Individual consciouses may vary, though.) 

But rather than all this rage (not pointing at anyone is particular, honestly.)  I think a more healthy attitude is, "it was a good ride while it lasted."


----------



## Imaro (Nov 10, 2010)

Grabuto138 said:


> I honestly sympathize because what you experienced was a product that could be updated or not at your pleasure and had utility regardless of whether or not you were subscriber. Unlike a video game, however, I would argue that this is not what you actually bought, regardless of how you experienced it. I think WOTC was pretty upfront about that fact that what they were marketing was a subscription service rather than a tangible product. They were and are selling a product called the Dungeons and Dragons Insider, and when you actually put in your credit card info it was pretty clear you were paying for a subscription not a software application.
> 
> I do not fault anyone for doing the "1 month every 6 month" subscription thing. EULA aside I do not fault people for sharing subscriptions (though if a group shares one subscription for six people I think maybe they should consider digging through the couch cushions and comeup with, say, $2/month per person. Individual consciouses may vary, though.)
> 
> But rather than all this rage (not pointing at anyone is particular, honestly.) I think a more healthy attitude is, "it was a good ride while it lasted."




I'm not raging... but I am irritated since I have an offline CB for 4e classic... and I don't enjoy 4e classic in the least. It was essentials that got me back to playing 4e and WotC's promises that essentials would be in the CB that had me re-sub until I found out they had been misleading in statements concerning DS and Essentials.


----------



## badmojojojo (Nov 10, 2010)

shidaku said:


> What part of WotC being a corporation, selling endless amounts of new and expensive books, minis, card-games, tools, and accessories, what part of them making an online for-pay service, made you think at any moment that their end goal was NOT the money?




Am I missing something?!? Is it really that expensive? I got my DDI for 6.95 and my books cost less than $10-15 each. I dont consider this expensive at all. Even my mini's (which i bought bulk on Troll & Toad) cost me less than .50 cents to a dollar each!


----------



## Sunseeker (Nov 10, 2010)

badmojojojo said:


> Am I missing something?!? Is it really that expensive? I got my DDI for 6.95 and my books cost less than $10-15 each. I dont consider this expensive at all. Even my mini's (which i bought bulk on Troll & Toad) cost me less than .50 cents to a dollar each!




Being poor is expensive.  I'm not, but it's a useful phrase in this regard.

DDI is 6.95 if you sign up for a whole year.  that's $70 in an annual dump.

Books are 10-15 on ebay, in poor condition, or in bulk.  Once again, bulk deals are cheap per item, but like an annual DDI sub, expensive in one drop.

Bulk minis are always resold, or pre-opened by the seller, the expensive ones sold for high prices, and the cheap ones sold in lots like you found.  Once again, cheap per mini, but a good drop for the whole lot.  100 50c-$1 minis is about $75.  


My point in the rest of that post was that DDI is incredibly cheap, even with an annual sub, compared to the cost of even two MSRP-cost books.  My point was also that people seemed to be acting like WotC did not have a right to sell their product, and that everything they do should be for the greater "fun" of the gaming community.

I wanted to remind them that WotC is first and foremost, a for-profit company, and nothing they do is done without profit being the primary motive.

But yes, there are plenty of ways to get around the rather high MSRP cost on WotC products.


----------



## badmojojojo (Nov 10, 2010)

shidaku said:


> Being poor is expensive.  I'm not, but it's a useful phrase in this regard.
> 
> DDI is 6.95 if you sign up for a whole year.  that's $70 in an annual dump.
> 
> ...




I dont argue that it can be expensive relatively, just how I've chosen to buy into 4e. Also, keeping in mind that Essentials has tokens you dont need mini's. I think for me the most expensive thing to buy was the DDI annual membership, but then again, (speaking for myself and my own budget) 70 is exactly what I pay *monthly* for my smartphone bill. 

Yes, I did blow $100 for 100 mini's (more than I'll probably use in one game session) and that $70 is alot initially, but for me those were the 2 most expensive things to buy into.  My books I share or buy on amazon/ebay.Thank again, a group could buy one set of books (PHB/DMG/MM's) and share. Also, with CB you essentially get all the PHB's power cards and CS (not to mention it adds/calculates everything for you).


----------



## Sunseeker (Nov 10, 2010)

badmojojojo said:


> I dont argue that it can be expensive relatively, just how I've chosen to buy into 4e. Also, keeping in mind that Essentials has tokens you dont need mini's. I think for me the most expensive thing to buy was the DDI annual membership, but then again, (speaking for myself and my own budget) 70 is exactly what I pay *monthly* for my smartphone bill.



I can't stand tokens, when looking at a flat map, flat circles simply don't stand out to me.  One of my DMs showed me how to make little triangle people out of paper, so I do that.  If the player has a character image, I make it with that image on it.



> Yes, I did blow $100 for 100 mini's (more than I'll probably use in one game session) and that $70 is alot initially, but for me those were the 2 most expensive things to buy into. My books I share or buy on amazon/ebay.Thank again, a group could buy one set of books (PHB/DMG/MM's) and share. Also, with CB you essentially get all the PHB's power cards and CS (not to mention it adds/calculates everything for you).



True, which is why I subscribed to DDI before buying any books or accessories.  It was comparitivly cheap and gave me 90% of everything I needed for running and playing games.  I do pick up books when they're going for good deals on ebay though.

Still haven't found a lot of minis I like.


----------



## evilref (Nov 10, 2010)

With $30k+ of RPG purchases over the years, $70 a year for DDI seems extremely good for what I get out of it.   For 4E my biggest purchase has been a large (400+) amount of D&D miniatures, though I drew the line at a colossal red given the prices they're going for.  Even without the $10 dip and cancel I still think the offer is great for the money but certainly that's influenced by what I feel it's worth to me. Perception of worth and value for money is a very personal and circumstance-driven decision.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Nov 11, 2010)

DDI is still the same it has always been. A decision to spend money for convenience and/or content or not. The new DDI (especially the CB) makes it a different equation with different variables, but it is still the same basic decision.

Yes, simplistic, but over-complication does little good but drive up post count.


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 11, 2010)

badmojojojo said:


> Am I missing something?!? Is it really that expensive? I got my DDI for 6.95 and my books cost less than $10-15 each. I dont consider this expensive at all. Even my mini's (which i bought bulk on Troll & Toad) cost me less than .50 cents to a dollar each!




Got your books used, did you? Up here they tend to be in the CAN$40.00 to CAN$45.00 range. Not many of them to the pound.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 11, 2010)

Dice4Hire said:


> DDI is still the same it has always been. A decision to spend money for convenience and/or content or not. The new DDI (especially the CB) makes it a different equation with different variables, but it is still the same basic decision.
> 
> Yes, simplistic, but over-complication does little good but drive up post count.




And sometimes over-simplification does little good but to dismiss the important distinctions in a decision.  

A marathon and a sprint have the same goal...get to the end of the race, but they are trained for, approached and completed in totally different manners because of all those different variables and the fact that they are different equations.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 11, 2010)

Lord Ernie said:


> For the record, do you share your account with any of your players?



Nope.


----------



## renau1g (Nov 12, 2010)

Ryujin said:


> Got your books used, did you? Up here they tend to be in the CAN$40.00 to CAN$45.00 range. Not many of them to the pound.




Shop from Amazon.ca or even Chapters online. You'll save 30-33% and get free shipping. Still way more than $10-15 but a bit better.

Example:
PHB3 (sticker price - $40 - Amazon price is $25, or $26 @ Chatpers)

[ame=http://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/078695390X/ref=s9_bbs_gw_d2_ir01?pf_rd_m=A3DWYIK6Y9EEQB&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=06P3C9EV41D3PSMARWR8&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=463383511&pf_rd_i=915398]Player's Handbook 3: A 4th Edition D&D Core Rulebook: Amazon.ca: Mike Mearls, Rob Heinsoo, Robert J. Schwalb: Books[/ame]

chapters.indigo.ca: Player's Handbook 3: A 4th Edition D&d Core Rulebook: Mike Mearls, Rob Heinsoo, Robert J. Schwalb: Books


----------

