In the last couple of months we learned through the Fantasy Grounds message boards that Paizo had refused to allow Fantasy Grounds II to official suppport Pathfinder RPG due to FG II not being able to run in a native mac environment. While many of us were disappointed, Doug from FG 2 had stated that Paizo was looking to their laywers to come up with something that would allow FG 2 to move forward in some sort of 'limited capacity'. Any word on this?
I'm frustrated with Paizo's decision and don't really understand why Fantasy Grounds can't have official support of the Pathfinder RPG. To take care of mac customers, Paizo could support a second VTT which does run in a native mac environment. Hero Lab is a windows only application, yet it is fully supported while Fantasy Grounds is not - why is that?
|
... They also got lights and walls and when you move your character around the places you can and can't see change. Kinda like maptools.
Heh. I'm pleased to hear the new kid on the block being compared to the stalwart lifelong friend. ;-)
SG will be cool in that it runs in the browser and will therefore be cross-platform. One thing that MapTool has in its favor is that it's Java-based and inherits the language's ability to run on OSX and Linux as well as Windows. (Oh, and it can run on the 'droid as well, although that's a pretty tiny screen. But if the CES show was any indication a cell phone with a small projector screen would be an awesome way to play an online game with MapTool!)
OpenRPG is another option as it's written in Python. But the installation process is a bit more arcane than for MapTool due to the integration of multiple tools (Python and wxWindows).
Kloogewerks is also Java-based. They are actually the reason I joined the MapTool community -- they didn't respond to my requests for information about the product (multiple attempts were made) so I went looking for another Java-based app...
<disclaimer>
I'm the site admin for RPTools.net and I contribute code to MapTool.
</disclaimer>
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm very happy with Fantasy Grounds and not interested in another VTT at the present time.
You can run a Pathfinder RPG game with Fantasy Grounds currently, but it doesn't have the spells and monster stats embedded in the game (it does for 3.5 and many other games, but not Pathfinder) which would make GMing and playing a game that much easier. With official Pathfinder Support, spells & monsters could be statted up and released and perhaps I could even purchase a FG version of the great Adventure Paths Paizo puts out to make my life as a GM even easier.
|
I'm very happy with Fantasy Grounds and not interested in another VTT at the present time.
You can run a Pathfinder RPG game with Fantasy Grounds currently, but it doesn't have the spells and monster stats embedded in the game (it does for 3.5 and many other games, but not Pathfinder) which would make GMing and playing a game that much easier. With official Pathfinder Support, spells & monsters could be statted up and released and perhaps I could even purchase a FG version of the great Adventure Paths Paizo puts out to make my life as a GM even easier.
im currently looking at Fantasygrounds and d20pro, still havent made up my mind with the until i actaully get into a game and try them out.
|
As both a Mac user and a Fantasy Grounds II user, while I would love Paizo to support Fantasy Grounds, I completely understand their position. They have their standards and would like the program to be universally (or at least close to universal) available to customers. Remember that Paizo uses macs and probably would like to be able to natively use the program that they officially support.
I would only hope that this does push Fantasy Grounds to natively support macs in the future, although I would doubt it.
Hero Lab is a windows only application, yet it is fully supported while Fantasy Grounds is not - why is that?
Could you please define the intended meaning of "fully supported" here? At the current time, Hero Lab is not officially supported or approved in any way by Paizo. We operate under the compatibility license and currently limit our content to OGL material.
We've been in discussions with Paizo for nearly a year to obtain official support and a license to include the Product Identity content, but we haven't accomplished that goal yet. A major reason for this is that we don't yet have a native Mac version available, but we're actively working to rectify that situation.
Based on this, I don't see any substantive difference between Paizo's position vis-a-vis Hero Lab and their position on FG2. But perhaps I'm missing something here, so please help me understand how Hero Lab is perceived as "fully supported".
Could you please define the intended meaning of "fully supported" here? At the current time, Hero Lab is not officially supported or approved in any way by Paizo. We operate under the compatibility license and currently limit our content to OGL material.
We've been in discussions with Paizo for nearly a year to obtain official support and a license to include the Product Identity content, but we haven't accomplished that goal yet. A major reason for this is that we don't yet have a native Mac version available, but we're actively working to rectify that situation.
Based on this, I don't see any substantive difference between Paizo's position vis-a-vis Hero Lab and their position on FG2. But perhaps I'm missing something here, so please help me understand how Hero Lab is perceived as "fully supported".
Well, then I stand corrected. I read on multiple posts here at Paizo that Hero Lab is supported by Paizo and I see Hero Lab advertising compatibility with various Pathfinder Products so I made an erroneous assumption. For that I apologize and I hope you do get Paizo to give you official support. It's pretty sad that two good products like Fantasy Grounds and Hero Lab can't receive offical support when 90%+ of their customer base would have the opportunity to benefit from the support. Official support of these two products wouldn't preclude other applications which were Mac native from also being supported either.
I suppose with Paizo's excellent products and decisions over the last few years I'm expecting too much.
I'm giving this one bump to see if I'll get a response, then I'll drop it.
As both a Mac user and a Fantasy Grounds II user, while I would love Paizo to support Fantasy Grounds, I completely understand their position.
Personally, I think it's the dumbest thing they ever did.
They have their standards and would like the program to be universally (or at least close to universal) available to customers. Remember that Paizo uses macs and probably would like to be able to natively use the program that they officially support.
This is a straw-man argument and inconsistent with former behaviour. They are supporting an iPhone app for Pathfinder, even though not every Paizo fan has an iPhone. But there, they support one system and not others. Why not do it as a Flash app? Oh, wait...
They could very easily give FG their full support - as far as I have heard, it is a great programme - and still support some programme that bothers with a mac version. Or forget about the silly mac port.
FG seems to be very popular, meaning that by supporting them, they would probably support a great deal of Pathfinder players that like to use tools - more than by supporting a less popular programme. Just because that lesser application happens to support more systems doesn't mean that it will reach more players.
So the people who use macs and play PF and want to use some RPG application feel left out? What about the people who use Fantasy Grounds and like Pathfinder and want to combine the two? It's okay to discriminate against them?
I would only hope that this does push Fantasy Grounds to natively support macs in the future, although I would doubt it.
I hope not. I think they have good reasons for not supporting macs. It would not pay for them. Too little mac users, too much cost and effort to convert the programme to something that can run on a mac. They shouldn't be blackmailed into this.
<disclaimer>
I'm the site admin for RPTools.net and I contribute code to MapTool.
</disclaimer>
I looove MapTool!
I don't even run online games (I prefer to play with people sitting at a table and all that), but I use my laptop to help my run my games, and I'm running two instances of MapTool, one for me and one for my players on an extra screen.
It beats the living hell out of making someone paint a map, or explaining stuff (and getting things wrong, and ending up with weird maps, and all that). It's fast and easy and lets us spend our time playing the game (no cartographers in our game).
Personally, I think it's the dumbest thing they ever did.
I don't know their reasoning and neither do you. I can guess some strategies though.
1. They have something else near completion or more beneficial for them.
2. They think (and they may be right) that any 'official' online support might slow their growth by slowing other online games. I don't have a clue about how much a license would be worth to them and I don't expect to find out.
3. The Mac thing. I've heard some knee jerk responses to this and most of them, by definition, have not been from Mac users. I think there exists a possibility that running the online thing themselves (whatever it is) is Paizo's best way of doing quality control. An official license would have to stand up to their standards and maybe nothing cuts it yet. Alternately, they understand that the first license will be the most sought after license and they really want mac support.
I love Fantasy Grounds and there is a good fan built mod for pathfinder. It certainly has less material than the PSRD but it does help us play. Since we're all online, I'm sure some people use Wiki sites etc.. to fill gaps but, to my knowledge, every player has bought the core book and several modules.
At our table we have 5 players and 3 Paizo subscriptions. Two are double subscriptions. At my table at least, Fantasy grounds is working just fine for Paizo.
Of course you can say they're denying themselves revenue. Without knowing how much revenue we're talking about or Paizo's other online plans I can't really comment. I think Fantasy Grounds is the best and most successful online gaming setup but I admit total bias - its what I use.
Conceptually, I'd love an open source online gaming program (this is where I plug Maptools). I think a module player, like a free pdf reader, would get more people into the game. What will make Money? I'm curious. I'm not sure money is the first consideration.
Maybe the core program should be free to lure new gamers? I'd love to buy a PDF with a playable module in the back.
Sigurd
I don't know their reasoning and neither do you.
You don't know that.
I've heard some knee jerk responses to this and most of them, by definition, have not been from Mac users
What definition is that?
"Personally, I think it's the dumbest thing they ever did."
To begin with you preface your comment with the word 'Personally'. I think most readers would infer that you are speaking from your opinion and not Paizo's. You might have their data, but if you do not it is ungracious to call their actions dumb. Most of the pertinent data must be confidential contracts and financial terms.
My assumption has to be that unless you say you are from Paizo, you are not. If you are, or you are implying you know their mind on this matter, courtesy begs you be clear. If you are saying you're versed in their affairs by all means reflect it in your board id.
The definition, in this case, are defined groups of Mac and non Mac users.
Some knee jerk reactions have been to slam the mac or its market share. By definition, most of these reactions have come from people outside of the Apple market. Those in the Apple market have an incentive to hope for a multiplatform solution. Their comments are more sympathetic.
Sigurd.
Aren't Paizo in talks with developers now to come up with an official Paizo-endorsed product? Thought I read that somewhere...
Zo
"Personally, I think it's the dumbest thing they ever did."
To begin with you preface your comment with the word 'Personally'. I think most readers would infer that you are speaking from your opinion and not Paizo's.
Of course I speak from my opinion. If it were Paizo's, they'd have overturned their decision, realising that it is the dumbest thing they ever did.
You might have their data, but if you do not it is ungracious to call their actions dumb.
Ungracious? Really? I must be gracious that I get less options? In what reality does that make sense? Do rivers flow uphill there?
The decision was dumb, and they need to be told that. Paizo's mature enough to accept criticism. Not telling them when they're doing something wrong - that's the worst you can do to someone.
My assumption has to be that unless you say you are from Paizo, you are not.
So you assume. "You can't know that" is not the wording you use with assumptions.
Plus, being from Paizo is not the only way to know someone's reasoning.
The definition, in this case, are defined groups of Mac and non Mac users.
You cannot define the group someone belongs into by what they say, unless they come out and say "I have a mac" or "I don't have a mac".
Merely saying that you don't like this decision doesn't define you as a mac user or non-mac-user.
Those in the Apple market have an incentive to hope for a multiplatform solution. Their comments are more sympathetic.
You know that your remarks are quite selfish (or apple-centric, in case you don't use apple). You only consider the apple enthusiast's point.
What about FantasyGrounds users? Why no sympathy for those who have invested in that programme, consider it the best there is, and are now forced to decide between using their preferred VTT and their preferred RPG?
You're basically saying that it's perfectly okay to leave those guys in the cold as if that was required to pander to apple users.
I don't think it's clear that this is an either-or situation. What stops them from officially supporting many VTTs? In fact, They should support all the good ones - and whether something runs on all systems isn't an indicator of quality, not in Paizo's point of view (or they wouldn't green-light iPhone apps, something that will only help iPhone users - but there is no public outcry for the people who use any other phone and won't be able to use these apps because of that)
And even if it was an either-or situation, we can't automatically assume that going for a less popular programme merely because it has an apple version will result in more people getting in on the PFVTT action.
In fact, if that other programme is less popular even though it runs on more operating systems, that can be seen as an argument against it.
|
|
Hmm, I have to agree with KaeYoss to some extent. I don't have ATT towers where I live in Elko Nevada. This basically means if I want to enjoy the happy iPhone world of Mac Users...I will have to leave my home for an ATT umbrella. Ok, I live in the sticks. I am an excluded minority of all the people that "do" have the opportunity to have an iPhone, but that doesn't mean I should be considered a non voice.
I am not an iPhone user because iPhone won't have me. I guess Macs are neat. They run real innovative software. The Apple corporation won't compromise when it comes to being forced into Apps like "Flash". They know it is dated garbage, but PDF reigns supreme. Apple won't compromise their superior software to acquire the use of PDFs. They really don't like Flash.
When you see such standards being held against industry giants, you realize Mac is struggling against immense pressure to "give up" advancement of technology and instead just labotomize themselves to become vessels for "accessible mediums." I sort of feel for Mac's plight there. They are being bullied by "big norms" that hold keys to vast consumer numbers.
iPhone is becoming the strong man in its market and I believe that it will crossover into other markets letting Mac stand on its own two feet where they weren't allowed before. Their success will pave the way for several improvements (including ones to our game).
I get the feeling that Paizo feels they have a part to play in this movement. Their desire to support Apple in every way adds their financial vote to moving forward in technology. Erik Mona at NeonCon appears to resonate this philosophy. He is excited about future technology and how it will relate to pen and paper gaming. It appears that he has seen several demonstrations as to how this will come about. Apple?
I think this is a no compromise line for Paizo. As an owner of a PC and not an owner of an iPhone, it sucks to be me. I wish I had an iPhone so I can appreciate those Apps that Paizo supports (or will support). I never owned a Mac, but they do look fantastic from what I have seen.
I would love to see Paizo related Apps for other phones, but I know that isn't feasible. I would love to have Pathfinder support for Fantasy Grounds ( I do own 2 full licenses and 5 limited ones for players), but I know that would keep people using PCs instead of Macs. I respect their decision (if I do understand it correctly) and I think this post needs their input before it goes any further. However, it is a pro Apple stance and not a very friendly gaming one. Especially if you consider my situation.
Cheers,
Zux
"Personally, I think it's the dumbest thing they ever did."
To begin with you preface your comment with the word 'Personally'. I think most readers would infer that you are speaking from your opinion and not Paizo's. You might have their data, but if you do not it is ungracious to call their actions dumb. Most of the pertinent data must be confidential contracts and financial terms.
My assumption has to be that unless you say you are from Paizo, you are not. If you are, or you are implying you know their mind on this matter, courtesy begs you be clear. If you are saying you're versed in their affairs by all means reflect it in your board id.The definition, in this case, are defined groups of Mac and non Mac users.
Some knee jerk reactions have been to slam the mac or its market share. By definition, most of these reactions have come from people outside of the Apple market. Those in the Apple market have an incentive to hope for a multiplatform solution. Their comments are more sympathetic.
Sigurd.
Agreed Sigurd, especially about that last part.
Look if people wanted to use a flexible VTT they'd use MapTools which runs on most platforms and is...wait for it...FREE.
I use mac's almost exclusively. I have Parallels installed on both of my Intel based mac's so that I could install windows and be able to run HeroLab (for D&D 3.5 at first, but now for Pathfinder and M&M). Now I like HeroLab, but resent the fact that I had to buy Paralells and install an entire bloated OS just to run it.
Now when I'm looking into any RPG software or product the platform it runs on is a big factor for me. I know what you're thinking "since you already have windows running on your two mac's why is this an issue?" That's a legitimate question. The answer is I dont want to use windows unless I have to (like at work) and I'd also like to reclaim the HD space that it's taking up. I know HeroLab is making noise about looking into an OS X version that would be cool.
For now my VTT's of choice are D20 Pro (runs in OS X just fine) and MapTools (runs in OS X just fine). I've taken a look at Fantasy Grounds and it's a fine application and if it ran natively in OS X I'd have an Ultimate License for it. But it doesn't, so I dont. Are they 'depriving' me of something? No. Allow me to reiterate: THEY OWE ME NOTHING. I'm a consumer. I made a choice. It doesn't support my platform fo choice so I'm not giving them my money. I dont hate them, I dont think they are jerks and/or stupid. We just can't do business, sorry.
The iphone has an 7 million+ user base (this was in 2009). I dont know whether that number includes the ipod touch, which also is capable of downloading apps from the app store. What people seem to be forgetting or not taking into account isn't the iphone itself but the APPS STORE. The other handheld devices while they may sell more actual devices than apple, none of them have anything even remotely approaching the app store sales that apple has. That's why possibly having a Pathfinder app for the iphone makes more sense than having one for the Blackberry or an Android OS based phone. The app store is a "feature" of the iphone and the ipod touch that thanks to apple's marketing machine everyone who buys the phone or touch knows about because of the singularity of the brand. The same is not the case for the others, not yet anyway.
The iphone has an 7 million+ user base (this was in 2009). I dont know whether that number includes the ipod touch, which also is capable of downloading apps from the app store. What people seem to be forgetting or not taking into account isn't the iphone itself but the APPS STORE. The other handheld devices while they may sell more actual devices than apple, none of them have anything even remotely approaching the app store sales that apple has. That's why possibly having a Pathfinder app for the iphone makes more sense than having one for the Blackberry or an Android OS based phone. The app store is a "feature" of the iphone and the ipod touch that thanks to apple's marketing machine everyone who buys the phone or touch knows about because of the singularity of the brand. The same is not the case for the others, not yet anyway.
I particularly like how the argument goes from saying that the people arguing for PC are not on Macs and that its not simply about market share... to saying that the iPhone thing is all about volume of sales on the app store (which roughly translates to "app market share").
You can't, from one side of your face, say that it doesn't matter that nearly 90% of computers run windows, but that that shouldn't matter.. while saying that the ubiquity of the iphone brand is what makes it a logical choice for development. Does iphone have 90% of the relevant phone market? 90% of any market other than, say, the "apple-supplied phone market"? Advertising non-withstanding, the PC market is dominated by windows... to the point that it has become synonymous with "PC" in discussions, despite the fact that macs are, by definition, PCs as well.
I don't like FG2, personally. That said, I agree that not officially supporting FG2 and Hero Lab is monumentally stupid. Paizo is not going to be a kingmaker when it comes to computer-based tools - pathfinder is not so overwhelmingly popular as compared to, say, 4E or all the other RPGs combined, that the reduced ability of the popular programs to support pathfinder is going to hurt *the programs*.
But hey, it's their sandbox - they can poop in it as much as they'd like.
The iphone has an 7 million+ user base (this was in 2009). I dont know whether that number includes the ipod touch, which also is capable of downloading apps from the app store. What people seem to be forgetting or not taking into account isn't the iphone itself but the APPS STORE. The other handheld devices while they may sell more actual devices than apple, none of them have anything even remotely approaching the app store sales that apple has. That's why possibly having a Pathfinder app for the iphone makes more sense than having one for the Blackberry or an Android OS based phone. The app store is a "feature" of the iphone and the ipod touch that thanks to apple's marketing machine everyone who buys the phone or touch knows about because of the singularity of the brand. The same is not the case for the others, not yet anyway.I particularly like how the argument goes from saying that the people arguing for PC are not on Macs and that its not simply about market share... to saying that the iPhone thing is all about volume of sales on the app store (which roughly translates to "app market share").
You can't, from one side of your face, say that it doesn't matter that nearly 90% of computers run windows, but that that shouldn't matter.. while saying that the ubiquity of the iphone brand is what makes it a logical choice for development. Does iphone have 90% of the relevant phone market? 90% of any market other than, say, the "apple-supplied phone market"? Advertising non-withstanding, the PC market is dominated by windows... to the point that it has become synonymous with "PC" in discussions, despite the fact that macs are, by definition, PCs as well.
I don't like FG2, personally. That said, I agree that not officially supporting FG2 and Hero Lab is monumentally stupid. Paizo is not going to be a kingmaker when it comes to computer-based tools - pathfinder is not so overwhelmingly popular as compared to, say, 4E or all the other RPGs combined, that the reduced ability...
I'm sorry VoodooMike, perhaps I should have been clearer and addressed the poster directly who was saying specifically that creating an Pathfinder iphone app was "depriving" everyone who didn't have an iphone. That last paragraph shouldn't have been part of my response to Sigurd.
Also, I never said that: "it doesn't matter that nearly 90% of computers run windows, but that that shouldn't matter..". I'd appreciate if you didn't attribute things to me that I didn't say.
In fact I was agreeing with Sigurd on this point specifically:
"Those in the Apple market have an incentive to hope for a multiplatform solution. Their comments are more sympathetic."
And the rest of my post (with the exception of the last paragraph) reinforces that point.
I endorse MapTools with as it's a multiplatform solution.
I mention my endorsement of HeroLab, despite me not liking what I had to do to use it since it's Windows only.
I mention my endorsement of D20Pro another multiplatform solution that I use in lieu of FG.
I mention that if FG had a OS X version available I'd pay a premium to for an ultimate license.
I'm honestly trying to see at what point I said to ignore Windows market share?
|
My standpoint on this is probably a little bit skewed, because I work for AT&T's primary competitor. With that said, here's my stance:
I believe that one of two things is going to happen with the iPhone. Either Apple is going to opt out of their exclusivity agreement with AT&T, or we're currently seeing the iPhone at it's apogee of iconography.
To explain: Look, I've played with iPhones. They're nice phones, and they're GREAT convergence devices. I have nothing bad to say about the phones themselves. However, Google specifically is really stepping up their game. Android's only been a legitimate platform for phones for about a year now, and already they're making inroads into Apple's market. The populace is becoming more educated about Android as a platform, and they're learning what it's capable of, which is just about anything. Recent reviews of the newest Android phones (by reputable sources that people pay attention to) have indicated that the Droids are currently overtaking the iPhone in overall quality. There are even starting to be discussions about which Mobile Platform CURRENTLY has the highest market share. Google (wisely) does not have an exclusivity agreement with the nation's most maligned wireless provider. There will be a ton of Android devices out there with a variety of carriers, which, let's face it, is how it should be.
Google is strongly positioned to win this showdown in the long run.
Apple's iPad actually weakens the iPhone slightly, since it's essentially a bigger iPhone that maintains all the things people like about the iPhone without the craptastic phone carrier.
Personally, I am highly annoyed that Paizo -although I love them dearly - is making the choice to forge ahead with an iPhone app as opposed to apps for both platforms (Android = significantly easier to develop for too, but that's a different conversation). Couple that with the unnecessary delay to market of VTT support in order to satiate a platform that comprises less than 10% of the US computer market, and yeah, I don't get the strategy. In short, I agree with KaeYoss in just about every conceivable way.
I still love you, though, Paizo.
KaeYoss,
So arguments you don't like are dumb, or straw-man, or unfair, or apple-centric? Perhaps they're from a different point of view.
My point was not to be fair or unfair but to anticipate reasoning based on what we do know. Platform support is an issue. I've used FG for over 5 years and I don't use Apple but I can understand that winning support for their platform is important to them.
It should be possible. The license money may be so small that they won't miss it? Being the first licensed product may be the carrot they expect to win the programmers. Having a package they don't use may move them too far from their material. They could have reasons - how PC-Centric of you.
You do everything but come clean on your background so I have to infer my original statement was true. Without knowing the private grubby details you can't sit in judgment on the decision.
Offer whatever constructive criticism you think you have. Gather numbers, facts, observations etc... but you are ungracious to call them names.
The decision is primarily about Paizo and their material. It's in their hands not ours. You can be bitter if you like but I think it's easier to work with an appreciative audience than an angry one.
Sigurd
However, it is a pro Apple stance and not a very friendly gaming one. Especially if you consider my situation.
Exactly!
Screw Apple! Let them go to hell for all I care.
Screw Flash! Couldn't care less.
Screw Microsoft!
Screw Macs!
Screw iPhones!
Screw PCs!
Screw Google!
Screw PDF!
Screw the whole gorram shebang!
Paizo is not a technology company. Paizo is a gaming company. And that's what they should support. Gaming. They should support roleplaying games and roleplayers, and they should do so 100%.
Getting in on the Apple War cannot be good. Not for Paizo, not for us.
My point was not to be fair or unfair but to anticipate reasoning based on what we do know. Platform support is an issue. I've used FG for over 5 years and I don't use Apple but I can understand that winning support for their platform is important to them.
The platform thing is hypocrisy.
It's not about "fairness" and supporting all platforms, Because they only support the iphone (and, thus, only one service provider, at least in the USA) and are not requiring a general Java version or one version for each major cell phone system.
It's not about maximising exposure, because they won't give licenses to programmes that don't have a native mac version.
It's about apple. For some reason, they're jumping on the apple bandwagon. apple this apple that.
And that's just wrong. I want roleplaying products, no gorram tech religion.
So either start producing a mobile app that runs on more than just one phone, or give FG the license even though it doesn't run on all systems.
You do everything but come clean on your background so I have to infer my original statement was true.
You can only guess. You can infer all you want, but you cannot know what I know or not.
but you are ungracious to call them names.
What is ungracious about calling someone names? Rude, yes, but ungracious? No!
Plus, I didn't call them names. I strongly criticised their decision. I called this decision dumb. The dumbest thing they ever did.
I didn't call Paizo dumb.
Don't twist my words to try to vilify me.
The decision is primarily about Paizo and their material. It's in their hands not ours. You can be bitter if you like but I think it's easier to work with an appreciative audience than an angry one.
And whose fault is it that the audience is an angry one? Not mine. It's their decision. It's Paizo who loses sight of what business they're in.
Plus, you're actually hurting Paizo with your attitude: I am a dissatisfied customer. I can do two things: Either I can complain to them - which is actually a good thing for a company, because it shows them that they might have a problem, and if it's a good company, they'll look into it and make improvements if necessary.
The other thing I can do is just pack my things and go, cancel my 6 subscriptions and stop giving them money. I did that with wizards when they made dumb decisions and were being dicks about it, but I think Paizo is different in this regard.
I'm glad to see some agreement with my dissapointment, but I don't feel as strongly as KaeYoss.
|
I particularly like how the argument goes from saying that the people arguing for PC are not on Macs and that its not simply about market share... to saying that the iPhone thing is all about volume of sales on the app store (which roughly translates to "app market share").
You can't, from one side of your face, say that it doesn't matter that nearly 90% of computers run windows, but that that shouldn't matter.. while saying that the ubiquity of the iphone brand is what makes it a logical choice for development. Does iphone have 90% of the relevant phone market? 90% of any market other than, say, the "apple-supplied phone market"? Advertising non-withstanding, the PC market is dominated by windows... to the point that it has become synonymous with "PC" in discussions, despite the fact that macs are, by definition, PCs as well.
+1...You don't know how often I say this to the Mac zealots in the office (and believe it or not, I am a recovering Mac zealot). You can't have your cake and eat it too by saying "our application support is more than suitable, we don't need the number of applications on our platform because our platform is more innovative/easier to use" and following it up with the statement that "the iPhone/iPad has the largest app market for the mobile phones and nobody can touch us; that's why we're the best". It's disingenuous and frankly insulting to the public to position the platforms in such contradicting ways.
Google (wisely) does not have an exclusivity agreement with the nation's most maligned wireless provider. There will be a ton of Android devices out there with a variety of carriers, which, let's face it, is how it should be.
Google is strongly positioned to win this showdown in the long run.
Just look at the Q1 2010 numbers. Android is now 9.6% of the Smartphone Market (up 500% since Q4 of 2009) and is quickly closing in on Apple's 15.4% (up around 47% from Q4 of 2009), and none of them are even close to Blackberry's 44.3% (which is admittedly in decline). I'd say stick to a PDF or web based solution, but Apple is even fighting that one with their utter loathing of Flash (which admittedly is not a great platform, but when something is that ubiquitous, it's difficult to ignore).
So I'm with Jeremizah and KaeYoss about nearly everything they're says about cross-platform support and the iPhone.
Hero Lab is a windows only application, yet it is fully supported while Fantasy Grounds is not - why is that?Could you please define the intended meaning of "fully supported" here? At the current time, Hero Lab is not officially supported or approved in any way by Paizo. We operate under the compatibility license and currently limit our content to OGL material.
We've been in discussions with Paizo for nearly a year to obtain official support and a license to include the Product Identity content, but we haven't accomplished that goal yet. A major reason for this is that we don't yet have a native Mac version available, but we're actively working to rectify that situation.
Based on this, I don't see any substantive difference between Paizo's position vis-a-vis Hero Lab and their position on FG2. But perhaps I'm missing something here, so please help me understand how Hero Lab is perceived as "fully supported".
Ok, Paizo anncounced official support for Hero Lab at PaizoCon. Congratulations Hero Lab folks - you also got a new user out of me with your nice demo at PaizoCon.
Now, what about Fantasy Grounds?
I personally could care less about Apple anything. No offense to those that prefer it. I have several friends that use them. I am not a Windows fanboy either. My preference of Windows comes from the fact they have what I want. The most programs. I want somebody to develop something cross platform that is a good program & is NOT Java. Java seems to have too many problems. I run Linux on some machines & I have NEVER gotten any Java based VTT to work. I use Kubuntu & PCLinuxOS. I am not a command line geek, so I prefer to be able to just run it. I don't want to have to dig into code to 'correct' something.
As for Apple, I don't like their iPhone. Anybody that will not let me buy one with cash does not deserve mu business. The iPad & iPhone can only be purchase with plastic. Apple stores won't accept cash payments. Besides that, 3G coverage for AT&T is bad. No matter how you slice it, Verizon's commercials about AT&T 3G are spot on. The iPhone would be useless in my area. I prefer the Android platform anyway. When more people live in areas that have no AT&T 3G coverage, I see no reason to pander to iPhone exclusively.
+1...You don't know how often I say this to the Mac zealots in the office (and believe it or not, I am a recovering Mac zealot). You can't have your cake and eat it too by saying "our application support is more than suitable, we don't need the number of applications on our platform because our platform is more innovative/easier to use" and following it up with the statement that "the iPhone/iPad has the largest app market for the mobile phones and nobody can touch us; that's why we're the best". It's disingenuous and frankly insulting to the public to position the platforms in such contradicting ways.
...but Apple is even fighting that one with their utter loathing of Flash (which admittedly is not a great platform, but when something is that ubiquitous, it's difficult to ignore).
So we can say that Flash has enough users that it's difficult to ignore, but then disregard people when they say the same about the iPhone? I'm just trying to figure out the rules for this argument....
|
|
So we can say that Flash has enough users that it's difficult to ignore, but then disregard people when they say the same about the iPhone? I'm just trying to figure out the rules for this argument....
Here's a math problem:
Compute the total number of Flash users (individuals with Flash on some piece of hardware) and the total number of iPhone users. Express the relationship between the two integers as a ratio.
Go.
So we can say that Flash has enough users that it's difficult to ignore, but then disregard people when they say the same about the iPhone? I'm just trying to figure out the rules for this argument....Here's a math problem:
Compute the total number of Flash users (individuals with Flash on some piece of hardware) and the total number of iPhone users. Express the relationship between the two integers as a ratio.
Go.
Doesn't really answer the question since we're dealing with two different markets there. Thanks though.
I know the banter about Apple bad vs. good is somewhat relevant to the thread, but can we get back on the subject of Fantasy Grounds and Paizo's lack of support for said software?
I know the banter about Apple bad vs. good is somewhat relevant to the thread, but can we get back on the subject of Fantasy Grounds and Paizo's lack of support for said software?
You're right, I apologize. I've downloaded the demo for FG but never really messed with it because the lack of official PF support. I'd definitely take a look at at again if that were to happen.
I've only used the Hero Labs demo, but in my limited experience with them I think I prefer FG more.
So we can say that Flash has enough users that it's difficult to ignore, but then disregard people when they say the same about the iPhone? I'm just trying to figure out the rules for this argument....
I believe, and they may correct me if I'm wrong, that the ACTUAL argument being made by Mister Slanky and Kae Yoss is that it's hypocritical of the Apple supporters to USE the market share argument when defending the iPhone, and then turn around and DISMISS the market share argument when defending the Mac. Mister Slanky wasn't dismissing the market share arument for the Iphone, he was saying, and I'll use his own words (as quoted by you), "It's disingenuous and frankly insulting to the public to position the platforms in such contradicting ways."
Because when you see someone make both arguments, it becomes apparenth tat what matters to them is not thee truth of either argument, but rather making sure it isn't their ox being gored.
Getting back to the issue of Fantasy Grounds and Paizo, here's my take:
I bought FG before I discovered PF. Paid good money for it. Hard-earned money that is scarcer now for me than it was then. Love the VTT component of it, blase about the Chargen portion. But it's what I use when gaming with my friends in other parts of the country.
Then I discovered and bought PF. Liked it so much I even bought my best friend a copy, so we could play. Again, hard-earned money I don't have in spades anymore. Love the system. Not my favorite, but my favorite of those my friends also play.
And then I discover in these forums that Paizo will not support FG. As for the reason why, I'm not enough of a technology geek to argue the merits of different OS' or smart phones, etc. All I know is that my favorite game doesn't support my VTT. I'm disappointed, but I cope. My DM and I have some workarounds, we cope and trudge on.
But I can promise you what WON'T happen. If Paizo decides to support some other VTT program, I WON'T buy it. Period. They make a good gaming product, and I'll buy that, in fact I have, but I have better things to do with my money than fund Paizo's personal tech agenda. Pathfinder's my RPG of choice. FG's my VTT program of choice. If the two never meet, so be it.
Ok, Paizo anncounced official support for Hero Lab at PaizoCon. Congratulations Hero Lab folks - you also got a new user out of me with your nice demo at PaizoCon.
Now, what about Fantasy Grounds?
What does "support" mean in the context of an OGL game?
What does Fantasy Grounds need from Paizo that they're not getting?
What does Hero Lab need from Paizo that they are getting?
<SNIP>...however refusing to support software simply because it doesn't support a niche player in the technology world seems like zealotry to me.</SNIP>
To does reek of putting one's own interests above those of one's customers, doesn't it? :(
I will say up front that I don't use any VTT software in any form, or any character building software. However, that said...
I think accusing Paizo (effectively) of selfishness and malevolence because they refuse to endorse a product that doesn't function for their chosen platform is selfish. As others have said above, if they can't run it on their own machines, how can they be certain that the software functions properly and follows the guidelines for their licenses? In my opinion, their stance is simply a continuation of their determination to produce the best possible products, and I don't see people complaining about that, save a small amount of griping when a product comes out a month or two late because they wanted to take the time to do it right.
For myself, I applaud Paizo for choosing to refuse to endorse a product that doesn't support the two largest blocs of Operating Systems.
I will say up front that I don't use any VTT software in any form, or any character building software. However, that said...
I think accusing Paizo (effectively) of selfishness and malevolence because they refuse to endorse a product that doesn't function for their chosen platform is selfish. As others have said above, if they can't run it on their own machines, how can they be certain that the software functions properly and follows the guidelines for their licenses? In my opinion, their stance is simply a continuation of their determination to produce the best possible products, and I don't see people complaining about that, save a small amount of griping when a product comes out a month or two late because they wanted to take the time to do it right.
For myself, I applaud Paizo for choosing to refuse to endorse a product that doesn't support the two largest blocs of Operating Systems.
Please; as much as you may wish otherwise, OS X market share remains a drop in the bucket. If it were truly a testing/validation issue, Paizo would simply drive to the store and buy a Windows machine. Of course, that's if you agree that they belong in the software testing business, which they don't.
No, it seems far more likely that, like most Mac users, they have an agenda. They want to push their platform of choice. That's certainly their prerogative, but trying to spin it as a positive for the 90% of the market that uses Windows is pure fantasy.
P.S. Don't get me wrong; cross-platform development is generally the way to go. But given that this was a third-party product which already existed, that wasn't Paizo's decision. It was their decision, however, to make it unecessarily difficult for users of this software to run games of Pathfinder.
Interestingly, I'm spending a great deal of time in two kinds of threads lately: Religious threads and Apple threads.
Hmmm...
Ok, Paizo anncounced official support for Hero Lab at PaizoCon. Congratulations Hero Lab folks - you also got a new user out of me with your nice demo at PaizoCon.
Now, what about Fantasy Grounds?
What does "support" mean in the context of an OGL game?
What does Fantasy Grounds need from Paizo that they're not getting?
What does Hero Lab need from Paizo that they are getting?
These are great questions. I was too busy being a punk to notice them the first time around. Does anyone happen to know the answers?
It was their decision, however, to make it unecessarily difficult for users of this software to run games of Pathfinder.
Sooooo... how are they making it unnecessarily difficult for users of Fantasy Grounds to run games of Pathfinder?
These are great questions. I was too busy being a punk to notice them the first time around. Does anyone happen to know the answers?Ok, Paizo anncounced official support for Hero Lab at PaizoCon. Congratulations Hero Lab folks - you also got a new user out of me with your nice demo at PaizoCon.
Now, what about Fantasy Grounds?
What does "support" mean in the context of an OGL game?
What does Fantasy Grounds need from Paizo that they're not getting?
What does Hero Lab need from Paizo that they are getting?
The one thing I know that Hero Lab is getting is the Advanced Player's Guide (probably along with various other books) early so that they can be ready to release those update packages when the book is released.
Possibly they might be allowed to use the product identity names in their releases (in which case they wouldn't need to strip out proper names and such from feats, spells, etc.)
I'm not sure what Fantasy Grounds really needs that is being denied to them. bugleyman and others might know more than I do.
What does "support" mean in the context of an OGL game?
What does Fantasy Grounds need from Paizo that they're not getting?
What does Hero Lab need from Paizo that they are getting?
I'm not sure what Hero Lab gets out of the official support, but it was announced Hero Lab is getting the APG early so they can have all the data entered and ready to go when the APG is release at Gen Con.
As far as Fantasy Grounds goes, official support would allow the developers of FG to create and sell a Pathfinder RPG ruleset which would, in turn, make it easier to run Pathfinder RPG on Fantasy Grounds. Also, all of Paizo's adventures could be sold pre-made on the FG platform allowing both Paizo and the Fantasy Grounds people to make money AND make it easier for GMs to run Paizo's great adventures.
What it means for me? A Pathfinder RPG ruleset and adventures packaged for FG would save me time in preparation for games I run and make it easier to look up rules during actual play. Can I play Pathfinder on FG without the support? Yes...but the experience could be so much better.
As far as Fantasy Grounds goes, official support would allow the developers of FG to create and sell a Pathfinder RPG ruleset which would, in turn, make it easier to run Pathfinder RPG on Fantasy Grounds.
What do they need from Paizo to be able to create and sell the ruleset?
As far as Fantasy Grounds goes, official support would allow the developers of FG to create and sell a Pathfinder RPG ruleset which would, in turn, make it easier to run Pathfinder RPG on Fantasy Grounds.What do they need from Paizo to be able to create and sell the ruleset?
A license to sell Paizo's copyrighted material for profit. Or some kind of license at least.
Because Pathfinder's mechanics-of-play are largely covered by the OGL, there's very little restriction about the creation of a FG ruleset to be given away to support the Pathfinder mechanics. However, the Adventure Path stories and adventuring content, and all Golarion-setting-specific material is expressly not covered by the OGL, and most reproductions (excluding "fair use", a muddy concept at best) of that material is technically a violation of copyright law. Any sale of Pathfinder material that isn't authorized by Paizo in some way is a clear violation of copyright law.
I'd love to see APs released in FG format, it would make my gaming life exceptionally pleasant.
As far as Fantasy Grounds goes, official support would allow the developers of FG to create and sell a Pathfinder RPG ruleset which would, in turn, make it easier to run Pathfinder RPG on Fantasy Grounds.What do they need from Paizo to be able to create and sell the ruleset?A license to sell Paizo's copyrighted material for profit. Or some kind of license at least.
Because Pathfinder's mechanics-of-play are largely covered by the OGL, there's very little restriction about the creation of a FG ruleset to be given away to support the Pathfinder mechanics. However, the Adventure Path stories and adventuring content, and all Golarion-setting-specific material is expressly not covered by the OGL, and most reproductions (excluding "fair use", a muddy concept at best) of that material is technically a violation of copyright law. Any sale of Pathfinder material that isn't authorized by Paizo in some way is a clear violation of copyright law.
I'd love to see APs released in FG format, it would make my gaming life exceptionally pleasant.
I understand why the adventures are unavailable as they are just loaded with material that is not OGC, but my question is why the ruleset needs Paizo's permission.
From the descriptions so far, it seems that people are trying to make it seem as if Paizo is trying to actually bar the use of Fantasy Grounds for Pathfinder as opposed to not giving them additional access to Paizo's copyrighted material.
I understand why the adventures are unavailable as they are just loaded with material that is not OGC, but my question is why the ruleset needs Paizo's permission.From the descriptions so far, it seems that people are trying to make it seem as if Paizo is trying to actually bar the use of Fantasy Grounds for Pathfinder as opposed to not giving them additional access to Paizo's copyrighted material.
I never meant to give the impression Paizo was baring the use of Fantasy Grounds, only that FG is a great product that I would love to have Paizo's adventures and rulesets available on so my gaming life could be that much easier.
Yes, I could create the ruleset myself and run Pathfinder on FG, but I'd rather have the FG developers do it so I can use that time doing something else in my life. If they have a license from Paizo, it will be worth their while to create one and sell it.
|
|
I understand why the adventures are unavailable as they are just loaded with material that is not OGC, but my question is why the ruleset needs Paizo's permission.
The underlying premise behind your question is correct. The Open Content in the Pathfinder SRD is well identified and there is nothing my eyes can discern which prevents the rules set from being made available for FG2.
Let's be blunt and honest here about the fundamentals: the overwhelming part of the "content" that Paizo is selling in their own Core Rule Book is not their own work. It is a deriviative work based upon the WotC OGL rules. Updated? To be sure. Reprinted, revised and with their own illustrations and value added? Undoubtedly. Derivative of another's copyrighted work just the same? Beyond any doubt.
Practically speaking, the publisher of FG2 may want a license to make and sell PF Adventures or other PF Rules using protected content as a precondition to completing work on a Pathfinder rules set. (Or not, I have absolutely no information on this whatsoever.)
That said, there is no legal barrier which prevents the base rules set from being undertaken to be inputted in to FG2 and released in and of itself. And yes -- sold -- at a profit. And yes, I AM a lawyer. (And NO -- you should not rely upon my advice but should seek out and obtain your own legal advice appropriate to the jurisdiction in which you reside. When you pay me for my professional legal applicable to Ontario, Canada, - then you can choose to rely upon it and hold me responsible if my advice is wrong -- but NOT until those conditions are met.)
Generally speaking, the OGL license which appears in each Pathfinder product is not a barrier to entry - it is, to the contrary, the keys to the overwhelming part of the Kingdom itself.
This is no great mystery and should be plain and obvious to all involved. Whatever issues are perceived as "preventing" this lie elsewhere.
(Now, there ARE potential issues which arise given the nature of the original WotC D&D license what is and is not an "interactive conputer game", etc.; however, those are primarily questions of fact, not of law. This is a lurking "gotcha" when dealing with this subject and requires a significantly detailed legal opinion to answer in the context of a specific computer product with a specific feature set and specific brands. At a certain point, in terms of its interactivity, some software can run afoul of the original WotC license restrictions; the OGL 1.0a does not contain the restrictions on interactivity, however - it's a different beast.)