Tablets for V2

[irondog068]

Will this be available on android also?
I will not buy an apple tablet

Irondog

[Gandamar]

I'm also considering an Android tablet to go with my phone, but at least initially the app will only be available on iPad, PC an Mac, so no Android support for the time being

[hazelbark]

I am told be people in the programming "biz" that Android are not easy to program. Therefore the "cool" programmers don't. The one's that do, do so for money. Then there are rumors of some hot new stuff out in October from Intel and Microsoft that are "supposed" to be real rivals to the Android systems. Android great strength currently are in smart phone and as RIM and Nokia et al have learned the rapid replacement makes this niche very vulnerable to rivals.

What this means for Slitherine I have NO idea.

I just really doubt I will see something for my Nook within the next two years.

[batesmotel]

The determinant on this isn't in Slitherine's hands. They have cast their fate with Abannan and what it dcides to do for business reasons. I suspect that Abannan really has little to no business motivation based on what wargamers want so I suspect Slitherine has pretty much lost control of their fate in this respect. Maybe if they ask Abannan very nicely to do an Android reader...

On the other hand, maybe Abannan will see the light and decide that there are lots of potential Android tablet users to whom they can sell magazine subscriptions.

Chris

[batesmotel]

The determinant on this isn't in Slitherine's hands. They have cast their fate with Abannan and what it dcides to do for business reasons. I suspect that Abannan really has little to no business motivation based on what wargamers want so I suspect Slitherine has pretty much lost control of their fate in this respect. Maybe if they ask Abannan very nicely to do an Android reader...

On the other hand, maybe Abannan will see the light and decide that there are lots of potential Android tablet users to whom they can sell magazine subscriptions.

Chris

[peterrjohnston]

I am told be people in the programming "biz" that Android are not easy to program. Therefore the "cool" programmers don't. The one's that do, do so for money.

Android is no more difficult to program for at a technical level than iOS (iOS is the operating system for iPhones/iPods and iPads). There are, however, other problems with Android that make it less attractive for developers to target (even worse if you are a games developer).

[shadowdragon]

The determinant on this isn't in Slitherine's hands. They have cast their fate with Abannan and what it dcides to do for business reasons. I suspect that Abannan really has little to no business motivation based on what wargamers want so I suspect Slitherine has pretty much lost control of their fate in this respect. Maybe if they ask Abannan very nicely to do an Android reader...

On the other hand, maybe Abannan will see the light and decide that there are lots of potential Android tablet users to whom they can sell magazine subscriptions.

Chris

We seem to have loads of business advice. You'd almost think wargamers are all very successful business people.

Treating the various threads as a form of market survey - albeit an unsolicited one - the response has been very negative. I suspect that Abannan would sell more e-books if Slitherine also offered a pdf file with only update info for v1. That would ensure that v1 players would convert to v2, but if people wanted a "complete" v2 would need to buy the e-book. However, with the negative feedback the risk is a complete rejection of v2.

Slitherine offering a full pdf version of v2 probably is no longer a possibility in the near future. It would be detrimental to e-book sales - something that Abannan might blocked since Slitherine was capable of producing a pdf version without Abannan. It's also possible that some v1 copyright / contractual issues might have made a pdf file impossible since v2 will have substantial sections unmodified from v1. Without any knowledge of the original contracts for v1 that outline the "intellectual property" rights of Slitherine, Osprey and the authors it's only guess work. Perhaps Slitherine had rights for e-book publication while Osprey owns it with respect to hard copy / pdf publication. Who knows? And I doubt anyone who does know is going to tell us.

So, like you I suspect Slitherine have little control over many things. I'm not too worried about e-book versions for other hardware platforms. Eventually versions of these things appear for other platforms. However, a "v1 update" pdf is probably a critical factor in the success of v2. If control over that decision is with Osprey, then hopefully they would see that they are more likely to sell the remaining v1 rules and army lists with a healthy v2.

There's lots and lots of speculation above but it does appear that you are correct and Slitherine has pretty much lost control of FoG v2.

[grahambriggs]

The artwork in V1 will no doubt be owned by Osprey. Unclear who owns the layout.

Surely the issue with a pdf is that Slithering have to recoup some revenue and they couldn't see a way to do that with a pdf. I don't know enough about it to say whether there's a way to protect revenues on such against piracy.

There's also the reality that v1 of the tabletop game was something of a labour of love. i.e. Slitherine would have looked to cover costs but not make big profits. That was fine while the people involved were involved in the hobby. However, they no longer are. Take the love away and it's just a labour for no profit. So perhaps this is the only way they could find to recoup some revenue. I doubt a software only version will sell much though.

[grahambriggs]

The artwork in V1 will no doubt be owned by Osprey. Unclear who owns the layout.

Surely the issue with a pdf is that Slithering have to recoup some revenue and they couldn't see a way to do that with a pdf. I don't know enough about it to say whether there's a way to protect revenues on such against piracy.

There's also the reality that v1 of the tabletop game was something of a labour of love. i.e. Slitherine would have looked to cover costs but not make big profits. That was fine while the people involved were involved in the hobby. However, they no longer are. Take the love away and it's just a labour for no profit. So perhaps this is the only way they could find to recoup some revenue. I doubt a software only version will sell much though.

[peteratjet]

The determinant on this isn't in Slitherine's hands. They have cast their fate with Abannan and what it dcides to do for business reasons. I suspect that Abannan really has little to no business motivation based on what wargamers want so I suspect Slitherine has pretty much lost control of their fate in this respect. Maybe if they ask Abannan very nicely to do an Android reader..
Chris

Losing control of your distribution channels to the DRM vendor is one of the reasons that digital rights management is such an awesomely bad idea.

[shadowdragon]

The determinant on this isn't in Slitherine's hands. They have cast their fate with Abannan and what it dcides to do for business reasons. I suspect that Abannan really has little to no business motivation based on what wargamers want so I suspect Slitherine has pretty much lost control of their fate in this respect. Maybe if they ask Abannan very nicely to do an Android reader..
Chris

Losing control of your distribution channels to the DRM vendor is one of the reasons that digital rights management is such an awesomely bad idea.

As a society we're going down the wrong road with "intellectual property rights" in general. Interestingly, copyrights and patents were initially designed to limit the rights of IP owners and protect public interests. Hence expiry dates. However, there is a push by some IP owners to extend rights indefinitely. And, of course, everyone slaps IP protection on every brain fart they have....ignoring the fact that protecting "ideas" is not point with copyrights / patents. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, protecting an idea is like lighting a candle that illuminates everyone....having lit the candle, that person now tries to collect a fee from everyone who's benefited. *sigh*

[ShrubMiK]

>As a society we're going down the wrong road with "intellectual property rights" in general.

I'm not disagreeing with you, in general, Shadowdragon. And there are definitely some extreme abuses of IP being tried on by various people in the world right now...

But I do have to disgree with this statement:
>Interestingly, copyrights and patents were initially designed to limit the rights of IP owners and protect public interests. Hence expiry dates.

If they were not intended ("designed") to protect the rights of the IP owners, why are they needed at all? After all, if there is no term of ownership in the first place there would be no need to introduce a limit to that non-existent term of ownership.

Like many things, IP is not black and white as most people seem to argue it. There needs to be a sensible balance somewhere. Maybe the protection on FoG v2 is too extreme, but OTOH if there was minimal protection would it have been developed in the first place? The dilemma of the digital age, copying was always possible, just not previously without incurring significant costs in both time and money

I don't have an iphone, ipad, tablet, netbook, or similar, and am not intending to buy one anytime soon. I'm not going to be lugging my largish laptop to the wargames club. I might consider getting v2 on my PC, on the assumption that having gained familiarity with the rules a printed QRS might be sufficent to actually play the games (although given how much flicking through the v1 rulebook is currently necessary during a game even after several years, that doesn't seem like a safe assumption!).

Bottom line - I'll keep an open mind, but I suspect this is an experiment which isn't going to work too well, maybe as some have already suggested it's a few years before its due time.

[irondog068]

I am all for Tablet only rules. But I would think it should have some abilities. Like army list builder etc. etc. But limiting to apple products is kind of shooting yourself in the foot. Android platforms have been outselling apple platforms. More producers instead of sole source as in apples case. I know it is also going to be for PC but, that limits it to desktops and laptops.

People who went the Android route to go with there phone, and have bought apps I highly doubt will buy an apple product just to play a game. And with the popularity of other ancient rules and those tournament players who will "Old School" it with DBA and such I think this is a mistake. But this is early and until it comes out things may change.

[shadowdragon]

But I do have to disgree with this statement:
>Interestingly, copyrights and patents were initially designed to limit the rights of IP owners and protect public interests. Hence expiry dates.

If they were not intended ("designed") to protect the rights of the IP owners, why are they needed at all? After all, if there is no term of ownership in the first place there would be no need to introduce a limit to that non-existent term of ownership.

Like many things, IP is not black and white as most people seem to argue it. There needs to be a sensible balance somewhere. Maybe the protection on FoG v2 is too extreme, but OTOH if there was minimal protection would it have been developed in the first place? The dilemma of the digital age, copying was always possible, just not previously without incurring significant costs in both time and money

You're right. My statement was too extreme. The purpose of IP (granted by governments) is to provide a win-win sitaution for society and inventors. However, up to now the notion was to provide limited IP protection enough to encourage innovation whilst not squelching competition and further innovation by others. That seems to be shifting to a notion of "absolute" protection. What was missing from my statement was the notion of the "mimimum rights without discouraging innovation" (i.e., there is a reward for invention). "Absolute" protection gives "intellectual property the same status of "real property".

The stuff that I see with "proprietary" slapped on it is laughable but it works since people don't want to test the labelling through a costly court case. In particular I'm am discouraged by its use amongst academics. Within the wargaming hobby I'm also discouraged by claims by rules authors to own ideas for things like basing, ways to generate random results, turn sequence, etc. Really folks.

[zoltan]

The stuff that I see with "proprietary" slapped on it is laughable but it works since people don't want to test the labelling through a costly court case. In particular I'm am discouraged by its use amongst academics. Within the wargaming hobby I'm also discouraged by claims by rules authors to own ideas for things like basing, ways to generate random results, turn sequence, etc. Really folks.

So what's the position when a company actively seeks input from its customers and reflects their ideas in "its" product? Have the customers naievely given their ideas to the company gratis and now the company is free (pardon the pun) to sue the customers (for breach of copyright) if they try to use what were their ideas? Purely hypothetical you understand...

[grahambriggs]

The stuff that I see with "proprietary" slapped on it is laughable but it works since people don't want to test the labelling through a costly court case. In particular I'm am discouraged by its use amongst academics. Within the wargaming hobby I'm also discouraged by claims by rules authors to own ideas for things like basing, ways to generate random results, turn sequence, etc. Really folks.

So what's the position when a company actively seeks input from its customers and reflects their ideas in "its" product? Have the customers naievely given their ideas to the company gratis and now the company is free (pardon the pun) to sue the customers (for breach of copyright) if they try to use what were their ideas? Purely hypothetical you understand...

Well, I imagine if the beta testers have willingly agreed legally that that is the case, i.e. that all the rights are with the company, then they'd be well within their rights to do so. All the beta testers signed up to that. It's not naive; unless that is you didn't read what you committed to. And it's perfectly reasonable that a company would have such an agreement. Otherwise a beta tester could easily pinch the rule changes, the great majority of which were contributed by others. Also, lots of changes were suggested, but Slitherine are responsible for the sifting and balancing process.

We might not like the direction that the publication of v2 has taken, but it's clearly Slitherine's decision to make, and they are the clear owners of the product.

If I may suggest it's also a lttle daft to take an antagonistic line. Getting into a row with Slitherine won't change anything and could make things worse. Politely and positively pointing out things that Slitherine may not have fully considered might have a better result.

I believe if things go in this direction version 2 of these ancients rules will die out quickly except for a few pockets, and the companies involved will make little revenue as a result. Persuading Slitherine to make the necessary changes to improve that outcome is what's needed.

[ravenflight]

Will this be available on android also?
I will not buy an apple tablet

I am all for Tablet only rules.

So, you're all for it, so long as it's in the i-format compatible with your device?

How very thoughtful of you.

The format that is compatible with EVERYONE is 'paper'.

[david53]

Will this be available on android also?
I will not buy an apple tablet

I am all for Tablet only rules.

So, you're all for it, so long as it's in the i-format compatible with your device?

How very thoughtful of you.

The format that is compatible with EVERYONE is 'paper'.

So true it seems simple to me.

[eldiablito]

2 things:

1) go do a google search on "A Christmas Carol". If ever there was a need to protect an author, that was it. For this annecdotal story alone, I'm sympathetic to protecting FoG from mass IP theft.
2) these tablets are a new technology. Just like computers within an office, eventually, we should be migrating to this new technology. However, Apple has a long history of NOT being the final victor of mass adoption (well iPhone being the exception). So, I do not see this app distribution as wise. Sell it as a PDF! Great! Or release it simultaneously on multiple tablet formats. I know I would suffer as I don't have a tablet, yet this release would be a sign that I need to change with the times.

[philqw78]

2 things:

1) go do a google search on "A Christmas Carol". If ever there was a need to protect an author, that was it. For this annecdotal story alone, I'm sympathetic to protecting FoG from mass IP theft.

I really don't think the author of A Christmas Carol gives 2 hoots about copyright