|
id very much like to see maps and content for the rest of the world of pathfinder filling in the gaps because one of the things i love teh most about worlds in RPGs has always been the great detailed maps and history put in by people like gygax and other like the world of greyhawk the worlds map was huge even if youd never visit it all it was there even the forgoten realms any way thats what id like and id gladly keep buying books just to have depaild maps and books on the other continants and cultures even if theyre just slightly alterd recreations of our earth never did like the eurpean maps of old that simply said thar be dragons
I am going to be honest and say that statements like this bother my sensibilities. I don't want to start an argument, but I am curious as to why people seem to begrudge WotC's or Paizo's need to stay profitable as a business.
The way I understand it is that for WotC to stay in business producing D&D they need to release a new set of core rules around every 4 to 5 years or they will start losing money.
Why would you decide to walk away from a company that made products you have enjoyed simply because they need money to stay in business?
On another note, since apparently for WotC modules and source books don't seem to be profitable enough to support business costs, what kind of alternative system would you suggest they adopt so that they could stay in business? I am curious about this especially since Paizo could theoretically have to release a new edition at some point in the future to revitalize their revenue streams.
Thank you for your time,
Rzach
I do believe that Paizo and WotC have different business models.
As stated before, WotC needed to release new editions of the core rule books to stay profitable.
Paizo's flagship business line appears to be their Adventure Paths. From what I understand, this is their money maker, not the RPG core rule books. And then there are the subscriptions, which makes it a lot easier for Paizo to forcast revenues for their products as well as almost guarantees a steady revenue.
I can easily see Paizo not needing to put out Pathfinder 2.0 for a long time. If it does not have a great need to updated/fixed, why would they do so when it is not their money maker?
Does that shed some light on the issue Rzach?
I would like to see a Pathfinder 1.1, (preferably) leather bound edition in a few years that has all the errata, rule clarifications and rewording in it.
I am going to be honest and say that statements like this bother my sensibilities. I don't want to start an argument, but I am curious as to why people seem to begrudge WotC's or Paizo's need to stay profitable as a business.
That's kind of a fallacious description of why a lot of people are unhappy with WotC.
From my understanding part of the reason 3e was designed was to make it so that people needed new core rule books.
I think it was Monte Cook who had written this, but I can't find the exact quote, but while a 3.5 edition was planned from the start, the game wasn't designed to become obsolete early. A 3.5 edition was planned to come out around 2004 or 2005, when sales of the core books were expected to start flagging, but it wasn't supposed to be the plethora of changes that it ended up being. The original (at least stated) intent was to release a cleaned up revision that took into account errata, corrections, and potentially tweaked a few things that needed tweaked.
Hasbro pushed it earlier than originally planned, and supposedly made a lot of changes simply to differentiate it from 3E, under the assumption that less people would buy it if it was just a minor revision/update.
This was the start of a lot of the issue that some people had - the game hadn't been out for more than 3 years or so at this point, it wasn't a broken system, and now we need to buy new core books? Rather weak.
I could be wrong but I thought a major reason TSR went bankrupt was due to dwindling sales of core books across the 90's because people would only have to buy a single book to play and they may not ever have to replace that book. Once they reached market saturation the sales started to dry up and they no longer were able to pay their debts. (I also understand that the company was seriously managed wrong which led to massive debts beyond the norm.)
As it is with just about any RPG, you're going to see a certain peak in sales, and eventually, those sales will reduce to a trickle. I honestly don't believe for a minute that this was a major contributor to why TSR went bankrupt. Certainly, increased sales has the potential to revitalize the company and bring in money that could save them from bankruptcy, but that's not what caused it in the first place.
There's been a lot of discussion in the past about what led to the bankruptcy: extreme mismanagement, poor inventory control (leading to popular product not being in print, and tons of unpopular product taking up warehouse space (resulting in losses due to lack of sale and storage fees)), poor quality control (the horror stories of foribidden playtesting have been expanded upon numerous times). There was a glut of campaign settings. There was simply too much product out there, so while it sold, not enough of each product/line sold enough to break even in many cases.
The way I understand it is that for WotC to stay in business producing D&D they need to release a new set of core rules around every 4 to 5 years or they will start losing money.
This timeframe is a relatively new development, seemingly brought on by corporate oversight, and it's quite possibly one of the biggest factors in *MY* dissatisfaction. I'm not keen on the sales mentality that I see too often, where Product X profited, but it only moved 10,000 units. Meanwhile, Product Y profited far more, because it sold 100,000 units, therefore Product X is a failure, and is cancelled/shelved.
RPGs are a niche market, and while I'd love to see the market explode, beyond even it's earlier hey-day, even then it was still a small market. D&D isn't considered an example of a successful product by most larger businesses (and Hasbro didn't buy WotC because of D&D).
Also it seems that about every decade or so a complete new edition of the game is needed with major rules changes to "revitalize" the income stream. It seems part of the reason they massively changed the rules is to make sure that you would have to buy all new rule books to play the game instead of simply using your old 3.x books with rule change print outs. It makes perfect sense for a business to do this. (I am aware though that the developers at WotC actually seem to enjoy the new edition.)
There you go - you imply here that a decade is a suitable time for an RPG to mature and come to the point of needing a revision/refresh, and I think a lot of people would agree with that time frame. I certainly do.
Problem is though, that we're not even seeing a 4-5 year time frame with D&D. We got three, three-and-a-half years between 3E and 3.5, and another three-and-a-half or four between 3.5 and it's cancellation, with 4E being released about a year after that.
For me (and I'd imagine a lot of people), it was too fast.
Why would you decide to walk away from a company that made products you have enjoyed simply because they need money to stay in business?
This wasn't why it happened. Further, without delving deep into it, the way the marketing and transition was handled was atrocious, comprised of outright lies and insulting behavior.
Even with the poor behaviours removed, why would I continue to buy product to replace my previously purchased product that's not needing replacement? We aren't dealing with a broken ruleset, or one that was in need of complete overhaul to the point of rendering previous versions incompatible (hell, Pathfinder proved that much).
On another note, since apparently for WotC modules and source books don't seem to be profitable enough to support business costs, what kind of alternative system would you suggest they adopt so that they could stay in business? I am curious about this especially since Paizo could theoretically have to release a new edition at some point in the future to revitalize their revenue streams.
That's not really a fact, either. D&D was (and is) a very profitable venture, just not profitable enough for corporate management. If they could dedicate the same resources that D&D receives to a different product/product line, one that would sell twice as good as D&D, D&D would likely be shelved in favor of that other line.
That we're dealing with a niche market is something to keep in mind here. Paizo isn't a "mainstream" company, and thank goodness for that. In the scheme of things, they're a relatively small company, and they can (and do) do things that larger companies won't. They're an RPG company, first and foremost. Hasbro has the corporate mentality of "brand management". D&D is not a game, it's a brand. WotC is responsible for growing that brand. If that growth can be accomplished via the RPG, fantastic. If the RPG hinders that growth, or doesn't assist in that growth enough, and other growth mediums (such as film, books, board games, toys, licensing, etc.) do it better, say goodbye to the RPG.
This creates completely different mentalities towards marketing the product. Non-gamers are pulling the strings behind WotC, creating these new versions and constant change. Gamers are pulling the strings at Paizo.
Paizo's business model is also one that isn't relying on the RPG as their core moneymaker. I believe that one of the Paizo staff stated that the RPG is here to support the APs and modules, which ARE Paizo's core moneymaker. That could change in the future, but as of right now, that business model implies to me that we're not going to see a new version of the RPG every three years.
As far as your question of alternative systems for WotC to adopt, I think they had already done some of it, but we can't view them in a vacuum, because they're not their own entity.
Looking at the D&D brand as it's own business entity, I don't see that it was doing poorly. They have/had the extremely popular minis line - a product ancillary to the core product of the RPG. They had tons of old properties that they could bring out of the archives (much like they've done recently with Dark Sun (of course, I'm not suggesting a return to the days of campaign setting glut, but well-done refreshes of campaign settings that haven't seen the light of day in ages? I'd be buying those books, and judging from the excitement around Dark Sun, others would be too). The Dungeon Tiles sell pretty well. There's plenty they could have done, it's not like things had dried up for them. D&D was profitable prior to 4E, and as an independent entity, could have/would have done just fine.
Ultimately, I don't begrudge WotC/Hasbro or Paizo's need to stay profitable and in business. I don't honestly believe that many people do. Some of us want to support them, and want to buy new material on a pretty regular basis, but we want that material to be usable with the other material we've already purchased. We don't want to see it invalidated in the context of the latest set of updates, and we don't want to see changes driven by a need to revitalize revenue streams - we want to see those changes driven by a natural evolution, growth and progression of the game.
Removed a 4th edition derail. Please don't do that here. (Or anywhere else on the Paizo boards, for that matter.)
If that was me, I apologize - wasn't attempting to slight 4E.
The way I understand it is that for WotC to stay in business producing D&D they need to release a new set of core rules around every 4 to 5 years or they will start losing money. Also it seems that about every decade or so a complete new edition of the game is needed with major rules changes to "revitalize" the income stream. It seems part of the reason they massively changed the rules is to make sure that you would have to buy all new rule books to play the game instead of simply using your old 3.x books with rule change print outs. It makes perfect sense for a business to do this.If Paizo decides to follow WOTC's lead and release a new edition just to revitalize revenue streams, I will stick with the original Pathfinder system and have a tremendous amount of fun with an outdated set of rules.
I agree with EVERYTHING you wrote Rzach, however there are a few points of interest I thought about while reading it...
Paizo has arguably, but very recently broken the meme of "must produce something COMPLETELY NEW to make profit". The outcry for a 'RULES UPGRADE' has been ongoing for a few years at least. Yes, the rules upgrade is significant, but hardly an entirely new rule set. 5-10 minutes of tweaking for a character can generally get you up and running, I don't know about tweaking modules, but I'm guessing about 30-60 minutes for monster revisions. THIS IS NOT AN INSULT... PFRPG COULD be viewed as a ginormous splat book IMO... example being those who would and might still call it "D&D 3.75", but you know what, IT WORKS and WORKS GREAT!
WotC has many other flagships flying up there that also release products monthly to bi-annual (twice a year? not every 2). Magic the Gathering being the biggest example, which uses heavy tournament play which in order to remain 'tournament legal' AND competitive you have to keep up with quarterly set releases, or play one of many other tournament formats designed for older cards. D&D miniatures being another with bi-annually/quarterly releases. Having one product line faulter slightly would indeed be a financial concern, but IMO shouldn't warrant an entirely new system with a D&D label slapped onto it. As Paizo has proven, listening to the consumer base works, involving the consumer base in production was likely tideous, but really awesome to participate in.
I had no problems with 4E as a product, however it wasn't what my friends and I were looking for in a gaming system. I have also played MtG and D&D Minis quite extensively. Honestly, my impression of 4E is just that, an combination of all 3 of their flagship products... D&D, MtG & D&D Minis. Do you really want to take your 3 best fighters(ship) and weld them into a destroyer(bigger ship)? Each serve different purposes, and usually are required to do so from a strategic stand point. Not everyone wants 3 cool products mashed together in one giant product with an old label.
All that said, I know of and have read people who still play 2E. It's all summed up by a really tired cliche "To each their own".
P.S. 6-10 years sounds good to me, and I greatly look forward to PFRPG splat books. New and original concepts like those in beta & core, will always be welcome by our group of gamers!
If Paizo decides to follow WOTC's lead and release a new edition just to revitalize revenue streams, I will stick with the original Pathfinder system and have a tremendous amount of fun with an outdated set of rules.
I am going to be honest and say that statements like this bother my sensibilities. I don't want to start an argument, but I am curious as to why people seem to begrudge WotC's or Paizo's need to stay profitable as a business.
From my understanding part of the reason 3e was designed was to make it so that people needed new core rule books. I could be wrong but I thought a major reason TSR went bankrupt was due to dwindling sales of core books across the 90's because people would only have to buy a single book to play and they may not ever have to replace that book. Once they reached market saturation the sales started to dry up and they no longer were able to pay their debts. (I also understand that the company was seriously managed wrong which led to massive debts beyond the norm.)
The way I understand it is that for WotC to stay in business producing D&D they need to release a new set of core rules around every 4 to 5 years or they will start losing money. Also it seems that about every decade or so a complete new edition of the game is needed with major rules changes to "revitalize" the income stream. It seems part of the reason they massively changed the rules is to make sure that you would have to buy all new rule books to play the game instead of simply using your old 3.x books with rule change print outs. It makes perfect sense for a business to do this. (I am aware though that the developers at WotC actually seem to enjoy the new edition.)
Why would you decide to walk away from a company that made products you have enjoyed simply because they need money to stay in business?
On another note, since apparently for WotC modules and source books don't seem to be profitable enough to support business costs, what kind of alternative system would you suggest...
The simple answer: I'm a raving anti-capitalist stuck in a capitalist world.
Now to expand on that, and include specifically what it is about WotC that gets me riled up: First off, I don't personally see 4th edition as D&D. They've changed it beyond recognition to me. I don't think ANYTHING should be done just for revenue sake, I think things should be done for the sake of it. Was 3.5 so unwieldy that it needed a whole new edition? Was it broken? Did 4th edition add anything? My personal opinion is that all these questions are answered with a hearty "NO."
Then there was the fact that WotC pulled all of their PDF's off the internet. I don't know why they did this, but I do know what it did to my gaming. I LOVE old editions of D&D as much as I love 3.x/PF. Now, if I want old edition material, I either have to hunt it down and pay extravagent "collector's" prices (like the Kara-Tur boxed set) or "pirate" a PDF. Those internet sold PDF's were WotC's ONLY source of revenue from older editions, since they don't publish the physical books anymore. When I go and buy an old edition book that I had to hunt down, they don't get ANY money, and really, they've only succeeded in making it harder for me to get the materials I want. Bad idea in my opinion.
From my personal position, WotC is doing things (poorly) for profit, and not for the good of the game or its fans.
I WILL NOT support such an attitude. Rich White Men (to be stereotypical about class and corporations) don't need to be richer, especially not to the (what I see as) detriment of something I love.
Sure, WotC made products I loved. Key word being made, as in past tense.
WotC no longer makes products I'm interested in, as well as pissing me off. They'll get no more money from me.
The simple answer: I'm a raving anti-capitalist stuck in a capitalist world.
Now to expand on that, and include specifically what it is about WotC that gets me riled up: First off, I don't personally see 4th edition as D&D. They've changed it beyond recognition to me. I don't think ANYTHING should be done just for revenue sake, I think things should be done for the sake of it. Was 3.5 so unwieldy that it needed a whole new edition? Was it broken? Did 4th edition add anything? My personal opinion is that all these questions are answered with a hearty "NO."
...
From my personal position, WotC is doing things (poorly) for profit, and not for the good of the game or its fans.
I WILL NOT support such an attitude. Rich White Men (to be stereotypical about class and corporations) don't need to be richer, especially not to the (what I see as) detriment of something I love.
...
As much as sympathize with this point of view, I doubt things would be much different if intellectual property laws were nonexistent. I also doubt things would be much different if the world was run by people who are practicing a variant of Karl Marx's political theories.
(Sorry to ramble on in a political tangent).
Actually they probably would be quite different. In fact there probably would never have been a D&D to begin with since poor white men* would have had no incentive since they couldn't become rich white men*.
*Or whatever group you wish to put in there for other things than roleplaying.
What do people think or wish.
For me, I'm just interested in modules/adventures and the odd interesting supplement (think city books, etc).
I'm done with rules systems. My friends and I are at the age and time of our lives in which rule systems have little to no value and aren't worth jumping on the edition/system treadmill for. So buying, much less learning, a new rules system is already a non-starter.
Further, as soon as I can no longer very easily adapt modules to 3.5, my purchases will immediately stop. These days I only have enough time to run published modules, and barely enough time to adapt them to our setting of choice, that converting modules that use an alien rule set back to 3.5 is also a complete no-go (and my wife and I don't even have kids yet!). At this point, my friends and I will likely leave the hobby.
So, while this is completely unrealistic, my preference is to keep releasing great modules and APs, and leave any rules "upgrades" for the far, far future, if ever.
Like I said above, I admit this isn't realistic at all... But the question was asked, so I'm answering it.
The simple answer: I'm a raving anti-capitalist stuck in a capitalist world.
Now to expand on that, and include specifically what it is about WotC that gets me riled up: First off, I don't personally see 4th edition as D&D. They've changed it beyond recognition to me. I don't think ANYTHING should be done just for revenue sake, I think things should be done for the sake of it. Was 3.5 so unwieldy that it needed a whole new edition? Was it broken? Did 4th edition add anything? My personal opinion is that all these questions are answered with a hearty "NO."
...
From my personal position, WotC is doing things (poorly) for profit, and not for the good of the game or its fans.
I WILL NOT support such an attitude. Rich White Men (to be stereotypical about class and corporations) don't need to be richer, especially not to the (what I see as) detriment of something I love.
...
As much as sympathize with this point of view, I doubt things would be much different if intellectual property laws were nonexistent. I also doubt things would be much different if the world was run by people who are practicing a variant of Karl Marx's political theories.
(Sorry to ramble on in a political tangent).
Actually they probably would be quite different. In fact there probably would never have been a D&D to begin with since poor white men* would have had no incentive since they couldn't become rich white men*.
*Or whatever group you wish to put in there for other things than roleplaying.
That is so bull. Money isn't the only reason people do things creative, and something can spread throughout a culture without having to have economic incentive.
You capitalists are so narrow minded.
That is so bull. Money isn't the only reason people do things creative, and something can spread throughout a culture without having to have economic incentive.
You capitalists are so narrow minded.
Only reason? No, but the difference between a hobby and a profession is you gain tangible benefits for a profession. Without those benefits, things would stay as hobbies and thus there would not be the same spread of information. There may have been D&D, but it would have consisted of 5 guys in somebody's basement somewhere, and they would have been the only one's to know about it.
|
Only reason? No, but the difference between a hobby and a profession is you gain tangible benefits for a profession. Without those benefits, things would stay as hobbies and thus there would not be the same spread of information. There may have been D&D, but it would have consisted of 5 guys in somebody's basement somewhere, and they would have been the only one's to know about it.That is so bull. Money isn't the only reason people do things creative, and something can spread throughout a culture without having to have economic incentive.
You capitalists are so narrow minded.
That was probably true 'back in the day'. However today, it would end up on the internet and become widely distributed. Coherence would be a problem, as everyone would derive their own set of rules.
Only reason? No, but the difference between a hobby and a profession is you gain tangible benefits for a profession. Without those benefits, things would stay as hobbies and thus there would not be the same spread of information. There may have been D&D, but it would have consisted of 5 guys in somebody's basement somewhere, and they would have been the only one's to know about it.That is so bull. Money isn't the only reason people do things creative, and something can spread throughout a culture without having to have economic incentive.
You capitalists are so narrow minded.
Yeah, and folk music only ever was played by the guy that first picked up a culturally specific instrument, and games like soccer don't exist. I forgot. Sorry.
That was probably true 'back in the day'. However today, it would end up on the internet and become widely distributed. Coherence would be a problem, as everyone would derive their own set of rules.Only reason? No, but the difference between a hobby and a profession is you gain tangible benefits for a profession. Without those benefits, things would stay as hobbies and thus there would not be the same spread of information. There may have been D&D, but it would have consisted of 5 guys in somebody's basement somewhere, and they would have been the only one's to know about it.That is so bull. Money isn't the only reason people do things creative, and something can spread throughout a culture without having to have economic incentive.
You capitalists are so narrow minded.
Yes, but which rules are more widely distributed on the internet, those made by professional companies or those made by hobbyists?
Yes, but which rules are more widely distributed on the internet, those made by professional companies or those made by hobbyists?That was probably true 'back in the day'. However today, it would end up on the internet and become widely distributed. Coherence would be a problem, as everyone would derive their own set of rules.Only reason? No, but the difference between a hobby and a profession is you gain tangible benefits for a profession. Without those benefits, things would stay as hobbies and thus there would not be the same spread of information. There may have been D&D, but it would have consisted of 5 guys in somebody's basement somewhere, and they would have been the only one's to know about it.That is so bull. Money isn't the only reason people do things creative, and something can spread throughout a culture without having to have economic incentive.
You capitalists are so narrow minded.
Current dominant economic form does not mean only possible way.
The reason that it's "professional companies" and not "hobbyists" is because we live in a currently capitalistic society. The way resources and information is exchanged are changed along with the economic system. Oh, wait, that's the DEFINITION of a change in an economic system! Oh, and guess what the internet is doing for the way information is exchanged.
Stop being so closed minded and look around you. People share and disseminate plenty without economic incentive. Otherwise we wouldn't have culturally specific cuisine, sports, music, or even *gasp* games.
Yeah, games weren't created to be sold. Games were created to entertain. Then it was figured out that people would pay for them, THEN people started making games for the purpose of selling them.
Stop being so closed minded and look around you. People share and disseminate plenty without economic incentive.Are you envisioning an RPG development model similar to the computer operating system Linux?
Actually, that's a PERFECT example.
|
|
Pathfinderize the Book of Erotic Fantasy (especially the art)!!!
...and I'll drink to that
Oh that is something I could sure do :) hehe
working on a nice little sexy project now. I have about 6 more images waiting for retouch. Just need time. :)
The simple answer: I'm a raving anti-capitalist stuck in a capitalist world.
While I would like to see social and economic changes in society I really don't see that happening any time soon in the U.S.
Let me see if I understand your view point though. Am I right in my understanding that you would rather have seen WotC allow their revenue stream to dry up and potentially force them to stop making games instead of releasing a new edition to revitalize their income sources? I assume if this is true that you would want Paizo to do the same if such a situation presented itself in their future, correct?
As for the pdf issue, I understand that it had something to do with piracy of their pdf files on the very day they would release them. At least that is what I remember reading on several message boards at the time the pdf sales were halted.
Personally, the first thing I would do is figure out what exactly is causing the slow grinding combat and nightmarish bookkeeping at higher levels.
From personal experience with 3.5 at high levels (15-28) the major problems seem to be:
1) an overabundance of options to choose from each round as a player
2) larger amounts of dice rolls which lead to more time spent calculating numbers
3) spells and abilities that require lots of page turning to look up specific rules for the encounter.
4) failures in the math system which end up becoming more exaggerated at high levels and result in players having to take more time to overcome problems. This is especially true of high level saves and to a lesser extent it shows up in high level BAB scores when fighting high ac monsters.
To speed up high level play, in my opinion, you would have to simplify the options available to characters so that there are fewer choices to decide between. Then you would have to cut down on dice rolling by a large amount. This could be accomplished by removing multiple attacks and making spells roll fewer dice. Then you could include any special rules in the text of spells and abilities to try and speed up play and also include page references to rules that aren't included in the spell descriptions.
Finally you would have to even out the math. Instead of a growing gap between numbers you would have to come up with the amount of difference you wanted between high and low numbers and then lock progression once it reached that rate. For instance if a wizard was supposed to have a 5 point difference in BAB when compared to the fighter, you would then lock the progression so that it didn't ever get higher than that. Basically once he reached that difference in numbers he would then progress at the same rate as the fighter. The same would have to be done with saving throws. This would probably require the most testing since you wouldn't want to make the numbers to far apart due to fear of auto failure.
Unfortunately these kinds of changes would ruin any chances for backwards compatibility with 3.5/Pathfinder.
Anyways those are my thoughts and opinions on the problems and potential solutions for high level play.
Thank you for your time,
Rzach
what would I like to see? A full random generation treasure chart (you know, d% for each level). Even if it was a free pdf! It's what I want! what I need!
...maybe some orginal non-pathfinder campaign settings, if that's possible. Steering away from traditional fantasy and geared more towards novelty and uniqueness.
|
|
what would I like to see? A full random generation treasure chart (you know, d% for each level). Even if it was a free pdf! It's what I want! what I need!
...maybe some orginal non-pathfinder campaign settings, if that's possible. Steering away from traditional fantasy and geared more towards novelty and uniqueness.
oh oh oh! Mr Kotter! oh oh oh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A Pathfinder Magic Items Compendium! The only good book from WOTC outside the core and monster books!
now to see if anyone caught that reference? any more old folks out there? :)
The simple answer: I'm a raving anti-capitalist stuck in a capitalist world.
While I would like to see social and economic changes in society I really don't see that happening any time soon in the U.S.
Let me see if I understand your view point though. Am I right in my understanding that you would rather have seen WotC allow their revenue stream to dry up and potentially force them to stop making games instead of releasing a new edition to revitalize their income sources? I assume if this is true that you would want Paizo to do the same if such a situation presented itself in their future, correct?
As for the pdf issue, I understand that it had something to do with piracy of their pdf files on the very day they would release them. At least that is what I remember reading on several message boards at the time the pdf sales were halted.
Considering the fact that WotC didn't make anything that I wished to possess, it's not that I would WANT them to dry up, it's that I wouldn't care. If something you no longer care about dies off, then it doesn't matter to you. Now if I had felt that 4th edition actually ADDED something to D&D, it would be a different story, and I would have gone and bought 4th edition and continued to support WotC. If the next edition of Pathfinder does nothing to add to Pathfinder (in my opinion) then I won't buy it. If it does, then I will. I want and will purchase products that contribute to the hobby of gaming, not products made to make a profit.
And as for the PDF issue, the pirating is an extremely poor reason. If they had pulled all of the CURRENT edition PDF's, then I'd buy it. As for the old edition PDF's that they pulled, they don't even produce them anymore. The PDF's that they were selling were their only source of revenue from out of print books. By pulling those PDF's off the internet, it makes people like me either pirate the PDF's, or go on a hunt for some product that someone is selling for over $100 because now it's a "collector's item." Granted, that isn't always the case, not everything is a collector's item. But my difficulty in aquiring previous edition material isn't really the point if we're talking about business model (but it does apply when talking about customer satisfaction, which is what would may have kept me coming back as a customer, as long as the products they were producing were still products I wanted, which at this point they aren't).
Pulling old edition PDF's didn't stop, or even hurt the pirating of those PDF's. Now people just pirate them more, because they have no other way, and those few that are buying the physical books aren't paying WotC anything, because it's coming from previous owners, not retailers, because, as I said before, they aren't even publishing those books anymore.
