|
| 25 people marked this as a favorite. |
AoN brought in far more money for Paizo than they cost them. If Paizo is too shortsighted to see or understand that, the people making these decisions deserve all the controlled, civil anger they are receiving.
This is not only destroying a great deal of goodwill for Paizo, right when they need it most, but this is going to have an almost immediate impact on sales. I rather expect the next few books to not sell as well.
I personally will not be purchasing any more Paizo products (or asking others to purchase them for me as gifts) until the full partnership with AoN, including artwork is restored.
To those working at Paizo who did not make this atrocious and shortsighted decision, my anger is not at you, and I am sorry that you are the one needing to read this.
| 29 people marked this as a favorite. |
I apologize to those who are still trying to defend Jim and Paizo, but I don't have a kind enough heart to see it that way.
First of all, I simply cannot accept the excuses Paizo has given for this move against AoN—arguments that others here have already raised. I don't need numbers or spreadsheets to know that the message of support and respect Paizo conveyed by collaborating with the community—providing PDFs and raw images to AoN—was one of goodwill and gratitude for the work the community did to maintain projects like AoN for the benefit of Pathfinder and Paizo. It is obvious, judging by most comments on this forum, just how essential that support and appreciation for the Pathfinder community were in making Pathfinder what it is today, rather than just another D&D-inspired TTRPG lost to time.
However, I cannot view it as a coincidence when—after striking partnerships with Demiplane—Paizo suddenly shifts its stance toward a vital part of the community (a community essential to the success and importance Pathfinder and Starfinder enjoy today). They went from a message of "we’re in this together; thanks to collaborators like you, we are who we are—we can't offer much, but here is early access to upcoming PDFs and the right to use book images to illustrate rules on your site as a way to help and thank you for your community work" to "you are incurring significant costs for us because you don't pay royalties for the images or the advance PDFs." I can only see that shift as ingratitude!
The excuses Jim gave are simply invalid. As others here have pointed out, the legal and accounting costs AoN generates shouldn't be—and really aren't—significant for a company like Paizo. Even if they are smaller than Hasbro, they are still a global gaming company that deals with various media and licenses worldwide. It simply makes no sense. Aside from the fact that claiming AoN’s availability of images fosters misuse—while deliberately ignoring that Demiplane does the exact same thing (likely under a more lucrative contract)—is simply underhanded.
The cost of providing early PDFs is even more negligible; there isn't even a legal excuse for it—it’s essentially just a subscription, like the ones many people here have or used to have.
At the same time, Demiplane receives all the material in advance and releases it simultaneously with the official book launch. It was already an advantageous situation for Demiplane because, even with both receiving material early, AoN’s collaborative structure was naturally slower than Demiplane’s; now, however, AoN will lag even further behind—since they won't even have that early access anymore—which benefits Demiplane even more.
I simply cannot view this pairing as anything other than: "Let’s screw over our long-time collaborative partner because they generate less revenue than our newer commercial partner." This ignores the fact that Paizo only became what it is today thanks to the community that supported it along the way—a community that includes AoN above all others. It is nothing short of ingratitude and disloyalty!
I understand that Paizo is in a tough spot, but undermining the very people who were essential to its current size and success—all for the sake of paltry savings and to benefit a more profitable partner—is an act of ingratitude, disloyalty, and bad faith. It doesn't matter if some cite desperation or the need to make money now to survive until tomorrow. Paizo is, at the very least, jeopardizing—if not completely losing—the trust and admiration of the community that sustains and promotes the company to this day. And trust is an invaluable asset! Even banks go under when they lose it, because regaining it is incredibly difficult; any reasonably wise company knows that trust and respect from its community and supporters are assets that must be preserved at all costs—otherwise, even if you survive today, you won't have a tomorrow without them.
You simply can't gloss over this. Either Paizo does everything in its power to regain the trust of its community and supporters, or it stands to lose far more than it could possibly save or gain. And that is especially fatal during the kind of precarious financial situation it is currently facing.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah we're all kind of guessing on that. But it's possible that it just isn't necessary anymore: AoN itself has a PF1 site and d20pfsrd also exists. AFAIK they're both more up to date than the legacy PRD which doesn't have books like Planar Adventures or Ultimate Wilderness.
I don't know exactly what the agreement looks like or what AoN can do without it, but the legacy PRD looks like a static copy of a Paizo website rather than AoN's creation. Without the agreement they probably don't have the right to host it and don't want to risk problems later, especially for something that is information they already have on their own PF1 site.
And I'm not sure Paizo cares much about it at this point given it's never been updated to be complete and it's for a system they don't make new content for.
(Parts of it raise browser console errors because modern browsers default to HTTPS by default but the feat list still wants to load jQuery over HTTP. Easy fix, but the fact no one has done it tells you what the priority level is.)
I guess on this one I'm wondering what the impact is if it disappears. Do people use the legacy PRD over the other options? I know when I'm looking up PF1 stuff, d20pfsrd is usually my goto with AoN second. I don't tend to consider the legacy PRD because of the missing material.
But are there folks that still find it useful?
While it is missing a lot of the later stuff, there's also things there that are missing from AON (ex: Height/Weight/Age charts, Technology rules, etc.). And while some of that missing information can be found on d20pfsrd, its also just an awkward website to use especially for newer players (no legally protected names, lots of 3rd party stuff mixed in, etc.).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I live in Japan and I organize and run a lot Pf1e and Pf2e tables here - mostly for my colleagues (I work in the games industry, so there are a lot of people interested in tabletop games and ttrpgs), but also for people in my local community and online circles as well, and AoN played a big role in all of that - We will be moving on to other systems starting this weekend.
I have also been a part of this community since the very beginning, and as a result I have a huge collection of bith Pf1e and Pf2e books and accessories, but I still used AoN a lot, both as a GM and a player.
This is a self-harming, short sighted, and very WotC-like move, and this post is just more of the same, but they also tried to take a jab at AoN on top of that lol.
Goodbye Paizo.
AON is NOT going away, just the art and a near useless ultra old 1e website VERY few people use.
| 24 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's why I wanted to join people planting their flags. It's a very clear sign to management that they should not try to push this further unless it is absolutely necessary.
As I noted, I totally accept everyone has a right (maybe even a duty) to spend their money where they think it should go, and I am absolutely not trying to convince anyone otherwise.
But I do want to offer one more bit of insight from inside the professional end of the game industry.
You may not be sending the message you think you are sending.
First, afaict, there's no place where you say what it would take for you to go back to being subscribed and buying new products. (And if you have and I missed it I apologize--but there are definitely some people who haven't). That means right now, you appear to be saying "Paizo has gone too far, and I'm out for good."
Once that appears to be someone's message, industry insiders pretty much consider that person gone. As in, there is no incentive anymore from your actions for Paizo to not push further on that issue. As far as people have left go, they've already left. They can't unsubscribe twice.
There's even a truism repeated in publisher-only chat rooms and professional gatherings at conventions and in planning Zoom calls -- don't listen to the complaints of people who aren't buying your stuff. (And that truism exists for a reason, I promise.)
Now, a concerted mass economic action can work, but it has to be carefully considered, widely adopted, well-communicated, and have a clear goal the publisher can deliver on. We saw that with the OGL fiasco, when Wizards appeared to back off because unsubscribing was so high with the common message from customers: "Stop trying to cancel the OGL or we'll walk, and we'll prove it by unsubscribing THIS thing as a group now."
Nothing I am reading iatm s giving me that feeling. There's no thread anywhere with customers discussing what might be effective. No offer to return if some step is taken. It's just "We are unhappy, we won't support you anymore." That does NOT automatically come with the offer to return if some action is taken by Paizo.
(Again, I'm not taking anyone to task for making that decision. YOUR money, your ethics, your call. I'm just trying to give some context on how it might be received, and even there I'm discussing industry generalities, as I have no insider knowledge about Paizo's current internal reactions, thoughts, discussions, or plans.)
Further, for that kind of boycott-like action to be effective, the customer ask has to be one the company can deliver on. I was once told by a group of fans they'd never buy anything with my name on it again unless I published more material for Star Wars Saga Edition. Well... I can't. I don't have any way to GET the Star Wars RPG license. Even though some of those people had been buying my SGG pdfs every week, and I'd love to have gotten them back, I couldn't.
I don't know if Paizo CAN reverse this decision. I certainly would not try to be extra pressure to bear on them on the chance they were in a position to reverse this.
But if I had felt moved to stop my subscriptions, I'd absolutely want to be clear and loud about what would bring me back. A promise of further dialog with AoN? An AoN royalty crowdfunding campaign to raise however much Paizo needs for this to make financial sense? A promise to not change the community use, to ensure AoN can depend on it for the NEXT eight years? Or is it only and inflexibly reversing this decision Paizo has already made? (The OGL issue was tackled BEFORE the proposed changes were made, and that matters.)
Whatever the case, I'd want Paizo to know how to make me a fan and customer again. Because if the answer is 'nothing,' I would not expect them to worry about my opinion anymore.
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
AoN brought in far more money for Paizo than they cost them. If Paizo is too shortsighted to see or understand that, the people making these decisions deserve all the controlled, civil anger they are receiving.
I do understand why you feel that way, but in fact you can't know that. And Paizo does have access to information you don't about costs, income, and resources.
One of the problems with anything like AoN as a economic factor is that it can be VERY hard to quantify. And Paizo may have quantified it wrong. But certainly no one outside Paizo has any hope of knowing what the cost/benefit ratio of AoN's commercial license was for Paizo.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps this is the wrong place, or the wrong time to ask, but having internalized and accepted both AoN's original announcement and the reply issued by Paizo, I cannot help but wonder at what shape the Archives will take in future. Much has been said about intellectual property such as artwork — which the Community Use Policy is quite clear on in terms of limitations and restrictions — but my concern as an avid user of the Archives of Nethys is more in terms of the intellectual property of the written word. Yet none of the various announcements or sub-announcements have addressed this.
In brief, the Community Use Policy reads:
You may descriptively reference trademarks, proper names (characters, deities, artifacts, places, etc.), locations, dialogs, plots, storylines, language, and incidents based on Paizo Material.
In the FAQ follow-up, it clarifies this clause as meaning:
In general, this means you may create and publish original works using those things in a variety of ways. You can write original fiction or adventures using them, you can create original artwork illustrating them, you can write up entries in a wiki about them, and more. (You may not, however, simply republish significant sections of descriptive text from our products—you need to craft new text.)
Should it be inferred then that AoN will not only be removing all images, but making strenuous alterations to pages that contain text that they strictly do not own?
For example, reference the AoN page for the deity Zjar-Tovan. It contains a wonderfully descriptive text of the deity which allows you to become perfectly acquainted with their nature and their peculiarities. It is a description, however, taken word-for-word from the Paizo product "Divine Mysteries". Compare to the pf1e AoN page for the lively deity Gorum, which contains no description whatsoever outside of that which pertains to mechanical rules-text.
A second example, the Stargut Hydra, again a perfectly serviceable description, and again taken word-for-word from "Howl of the Wild". Compare, pf1e's entry for Hydras. "Multiple angry snake-like heads rise from the sleek, serpentine body of this terrifying monster", indeed.
To my understanding, during the days of pf1e the Archives of Nethys operated under largely the same restrictions as they are being placed into now. Should it be expected then, that alongside non-sanctioned images and artwork, that the written intellectual property of Paizo will be removed from the site as well?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps this is the wrong place, or the wrong time to ask, but having internalized and accepted both AoN's original announcement and the reply issued by Paizo, I cannot help but wonder at what shape the Archives will take in future. Much has been said about intellectual property such as artwork — which the Community Use Policy is quite clear on in terms of limitations and restrictions — but my concern as an avid user of the Archives of Nethys is more in terms of the intellectual property of the written word. Yet none of the various announcements or sub-announcements have addressed this.
In brief, the Community Use Policy reads:
You may descriptively reference trademarks, proper names (characters, deities, artifacts, places, etc.), locations, dialogs, plots, storylines, language, and incidents based on Paizo Material.In the FAQ follow-up, it clarifies this clause as meaning:
In general, this means you may create and publish original works using those things in a variety of ways. You can write original fiction or adventures using them, you can create original artwork illustrating them, you can write up entries in a wiki about them, and more. (You may not, however, simply republish significant sections of descriptive text from our products—you need to craft new text.)Should it be inferred then that AoN will not only be removing all images, but making strenuous alterations to pages that contain text that they strictly do not own?
For example, reference the AoN page for the deity Zjar-Tovan. It contains a wonderfully descriptive text of the deity which allows you to become perfectly acquainted with their nature and their peculiarities. It is a description, however, taken word-for-word from the Paizo product "Divine Mysteries". Compare to the pf1e AoN page for the lively deity Gorum, which contains no description whatsoever outside of that which pertains to...
Assuming that would also be assuming AoN lied in their announcement which I'm pretty sure we can assume they didn't. Only changes are art removal, swift updates and getting rid of the out of date near useless 1e SRD (since both D20PFSRD and AoN 1e have like 99% of that info and more) which I'm surprised they didnt do forever ago
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wise stuff I wanted to keep in but was too long
Thank you for correcting us, Owen. I did say what I wanted to return but I can see how my parting shot may have muddled it.
So to be clear to the good people of Paizo. All we want is either a new, more respectful statement that gives AoN the respect they deserve, along with an apology to them by Jim, or a reversal on the decision and me and my group will come back.
We don't want you to go under, we also feel this situation is insanely mishandled.
| 20 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lots of people saying "they just don't get pdfs before release day, nothing changes" and missing out on the massive ramifications of unpaid volunteers with busy lives going from months of lead time to coordinate data input suddenly having to start from 0 after the books are already out.
This is probably gonna lead to AON being months behind Demiplane at all times, which I increasingly suspect is part of the intent, and will have all sorts of knock-on effects for how people play the game online since hardly anyone is going to look up rules via Demiplane in the middle of a session (because it's awful and slow) in the meantime.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
While it is missing a lot of the later stuff, there's also things there that are missing from AON (ex: Height/Weight/Age charts, Technology rules, etc.). And while some of that missing information can be found on d20pfsrd, its also just an awkward website to use especially for newer players (no legally protected names, lots of 3rd party stuff mixed in, etc.).
Makes sense. Seems more folks find it useful than I realized. Thanks for the insight, folks!
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's why I wanted to join people planting their flags. It's a very clear sign to management that they should not try to push this further unless it is absolutely necessary.As I noted, I totally accept everyone has a right (maybe even a duty) to spend their money where they think it should go, and I am absolutely not trying to convince anyone otherwise.
But I do want to offer one more bit of insight from inside the professional end of the game industry.
You may not be sending the message you think you are sending.
First, afaict, there's no place where you say what it would take for you to go back to being subscribed and buying new products. (And if you have and I missed it I apologize--but there are definitely some people who haven't). That means right now, you appear to be saying "Paizo has gone too far, and I'm out for good."
Once that appears to be someone's message, industry insiders pretty much consider that person gone. As in, there is no incentive anymore from your actions for Paizo to not push further on that issue. As far as people have left go, they've already left. They can't unsubscribe twice.
There's even a truism repeated in publisher-only chat rooms and professional gatherings at conventions and in planning Zoom calls -- don't listen to the complaints of people who aren't buying your stuff. (And that truism exists for a reason, I promise.)
Now, a concerted mass economic action can work, but it has to be carefully considered, widely adopted, well-communicated, and have a clear goal the publisher can deliver on. We saw that with the OGL fiasco, when Wizards appeared to back off because unsubscribing was so high with the common message from customers: "Stop trying to cancel the OGL or we'll walk, and we'll prove it by unsubscribing THIS thing as a group now."
Nothing I am reading iatm s giving me that feeling. There's no thread anywhere with customers discussing what might be effective. No offer to return if some step is taken. It's just...
I understand what you're saying and what you mean but just as clearly we have no clue what is possible as a community, and if someone is going to the paizo forums of all places they deeply care about that community more than likely. The response we were given when it came up amounted to 'the costs were too much' with a side of shame for posting while talks were still ongoing. I do not doubt that the costs were problematic but I spend my money on Pathfinder because I believe this is a company which supports it's community and it's community supports it in turn. As such I would have expected them to have communicated this, perhaps alongside other announcements of restructuring or steps moving forwards with the poor hand they were dealt. I believe that a company who was once close enough to their community to make a deal like this with AoN in the first place, who holds often 'fireside chat' style streams to keep people up to date, and who generally does everything they can (or at least it appears that way from the outside) to stay connected to their community would offer those options as they see it rather than just saying what the problem is after the fact.
The response we got reads like a wall to talk to/a dismissal, and it very well might be, but I hope you're right and there are things which can be done. I would certainly not be opposed to continuing to support Paizo, but this has definitely put a caution in my wallet.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I buy most of the books hardcover (I like to read paper) even though I mostly play Play-by-Post these days. This means I use AON very frequently, mostly to communicate game mechanics as GM or player in a way that is neat and reliable. Even when I GM in-person Society games, rather than schlep several Bestiaries and Monster Cores in a backpack, I usually bring a device to lookup creatures on AON (Challenge Points are a real variable).
If AON does right by themselves and shuts down their site down, and Paizo forces a subscription model to Demiplane or Pathbuilder or whatever, I will probably have to leave Pathfinder.
And frankly, I don't buy the arguments "protection from AI" nor "Cost of lawyers" nor "Keeping our IP manageable" nor the "we were going to negotiate but they spilled the beans early and are now punished" explanation. It feels disingenuous and even condescending.
So add me to the folks boycotting new purchases until Paizo leadership reevaluates and reverses their decision to move forward on this or somehow restores good will.
| 49 people marked this as a favorite. |
A Constructive "Third Way" for Archives of Nethys and Paizo
I’ve been reading through this thread with a heavy heart, and I feel deeply for everyone involved.
To give some context on where I'm coming from: I used to work in the marketing department here at Paizo years ago, and today I serve as the Executive Director of a nonprofit arts organization. (It would be lovely if you could remove the Ossian tag from my name.) Looking at this heartbreaking situation through both of those lenses, it feels like we are watching a classic systemic conflict: trying to force a beautiful, community-driven utility into a rigid, commercial legal box.
It is understandable why Paizo had to make this incredibly difficult call. When a company is facing severe economic headwinds, tight margins, and recent staff transitions, they do not have the internal legal, financial, and administrative hours to manage an unpaid commercial contract. Furthermore, commercial partners who pay premium fees for licensing rights have a legal right to wonder why an unprofitable site gets the same assets. Paizo may be acting out of survival and necessity, not malice.
At the same time, my heart breaks for the volunteers at Archives of Nethys. It is incredibly dispiriting to put countless hours of passion into a project, only to have to do the manual labor of stripping away features and art to make it objectively worse.
But I wonder if there is a "Third Way" that the community, alongside Paizo and the AoN team, could explore.
Archives of Nethys operates as a public utility in everything but name. If the parent entity behind AoN (Rose-Winds LLC) were to transition into a registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit public charity (or digital archive), it could fundamentally rewrite the rules of this relationship in a way that helps everyone:
Legitimizing the Volunteer Force: Under US labor laws, for-profit LLCs are highly restricted in using unpaid "volunteers." Transitioning to a 501(c)(3) legally shields the AoN creators, officially recognizing their amazing contributors as legal volunteers for a public educational and archival resource.
Note: I don't mean to imply any illegitimacy. While Rose-Winds is technically a for-profit LLC, the project seems to me to operate on a collaborative 'wiki model'. The developers and editors entering data aren't traditional corporate employees; they are passionate GMs, players, and programmers donating their digital labor to build a better tool for the community they love. In the modern digital landscape, this kind of decentralized, hobbyist collaboration is a beautiful and vital force, but it inevitably runs into friction when forced to operate under standard commercial corporate rules. Transitioning to a structured nonprofit framework would honor and protect this community wiki spirit, giving it a legal home designed specifically to support it. (I may be incorrect about the operational details, but a nonprofit volunteer model seems "safer" for all involved to me.)
Corporate Sponsorship vs. Commercial Licensing: This is the big legal shift. Paizo cannot legally give commercial assets away to another for-profit LLC for free while charging competitors. However, a corporation can donate intellectual property, art assets, or funding to a registered public charity. Restructuring the relationship as a "charitable corporate sponsorship" legally sidesteps the hyothethical "exclusivity" complaints of paid commercial platforms. It also turns any support Paizo offers into a tax-deductible marketing write-off.
Unlocking New Funding Streams: While Patreon is wonderful, it isn't tax-deductible for donors. As a 501(c)(3), AoN could pursue digital preservation grants and accept tax-deductible corporate matching gifts, securing their financial future far beyond what a standard LLC can achieve.
Spreading the Burden (Board Governance): The weight of this entire community conundrum shouldn't rest solely on one founder's shoulders. A nonprofit board composed of copyright attorneys, digital librarians, and community advocates could share the load, ensuring the Archive's survival for decades to come.
Nobody wanted this change to happen. But if the community can help Archives of Nethys transition from a commercial partner to a permanent, community-owned public charity, it might build a stronger, more legally secure foundation for the game we all love. (You don't see me anymore, but I am on AoN all the time.)
Thank you to the incredible volunteers at AoN, and to the hardworking staff at Paizo who continue to steer the ship through incredibly stormy seas. You are appreciated.
Adventures Ahead,
Aaron Shanks
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
According to the facebook posts i have seen they are still providing AoN with the books, https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1DxSJz9AnN/ it is in the comments here. So literally all they are doing is taking away the artwork.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Aaron makes some valid points in that, basically, there could have been other ways forward for Paizo and AoN instead of simply cutting them off and then saying 'but maybe we can negotiate' but then not answering e-mails.
Time and again the one point I see getting missed is that Paizo themselves have pointed people to AoN, linked to it, called it the official repository for the rules and so on.
Legitimizing them in some way would have been better. Some kind of integration with Paizo's store front so that people could click a link to go directly to a product page for whatever it was they were looking at. Small banner adds on the bottom that led to Paizo store pages, all kinds of things.
This can't all be laid at the feet of AoN as being their fault. If Paizo treated them like a partner, if Paizo reached out to the community to let us know what issues there were and asked for ideas about how to resolve them or make things work better.
You have TALK to us Paizo! You have to trust you're community to WANT you to succeed and have ideas of how that can happen. Instead you're quietly doing all these things behind the scene and it looks shady AF.
| 29 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don’t really get how other companies could be so unaware as to not understand why some places get different licenses than others.
You would, seriously, be shocked.
You would be jaw-droppingly shocked and horrified.
I have dealt with a LOT of games and other content made with licensed properties. Everything from Star Wars to a single piece of art connected to nothing else. And let me tell you, there are 100% companies who are SO UNAWARE.
In my own direct, personal experience--cases where I was in the room where it happened:
There are companies that think tabletop RPGs make the same amount of money as Hollywood movies, and any claim otherwise is BS driven by greed and an effort to screw over license holders.
There are executives and lawyers who think if a group of gamers buy a ttRPG that does NOT license a given IP, and those gamers use it to play in in that IP in their homes, that the Game Publisher of that game is on the hook for their FANS violating that world's IP. (Yes, seriously.) And it gets worse if the people who bought the game book use it in some other IP on an Actual Play. And even if the executives and lawyers have a 0% chance of winning that claim in court, they CAN force you to spend money to defend yourself.
There are companies that think licensing their IP for a game is the same as licensing it for a lunchbox. They promise approvals in 30 days and are then shocked, SHOCKED, to be given a 300-page book full of lore and history and laws of the cosmology of their universe... even though the size of those books was completely outlined in the licensing contracts.
A company licenses an IP for a ttRPG I was supposed to work on, only for the writer of the IP to declare the ttRPG could not include anyone making any decisions about what any character in that universe did. Not even their own new unofficial character, in their games in their homes. And the first claim was that this 'restriction' was not a violation of selling a ttRPG license.
And, yeah, I have directly heard company representatives b!%!~ about the rights, deals, and availability OTHER licensors have. One demanded they get paid more than any other company, and that they be asked to give the least support of any other company. And other had someone on a Zoom call do a google search, see that there were fan sites that had no been shut down, and declared that :trained the fanbase to only want free content," and refused to consider paying anything for licensing that game world.
Now, to be clear, I have NO insider info about what is going on at Paizo these days. Nor should I--unless hired to do a specific project for them, there's no legit reason for me to know what is going on internally at Paizo. I can't claim that anything like this is in any way involved in any of the current decisions.
But if you are wondering if companies wanting to make money from or give money to game companies can be utterly, totally, in some cases clearly WEAPONIZED levels of clueless, dumb, and unreasonable?
Yes, that happens.
Often.
And they sometimes have more money to offer than a RPG publisher can otherwise make in a year.
|
| 25 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am saddened by the turn this conversation has taken.
From personal attacks against Jim, allegations of corporate greed directed at Paizo, and personal attacks and insults against other players, some of you have taken an already horrible situation and have made it even worse.
I served for 14 years on the board of directors for a not for profit (a service based organization), 4 of those years as national president and chair of the board. We had several partnership agreements with other service-related organizations. And those agreements had to be carefully negotiated because they had to serve the interests of the parties in the agreement. And when they didn’t, those agreements might have to change or go away completely.
So, for me, it isn’t hard to understand Paizo’s position here, even if I don’t know in exacting details, because the agreements have to benefit the parties, not put them or their interests at risk or expose them to vulnerabilities.
I know some have taken issue with Jim specifically calling out AoN by saying they made the announcement while discussions were taking place. I know some of you found that troublesome/offensive/whatever because you thought maybe they were doing something of a drive-by on AoN. I don’t read it that way, and I don’t agree with that opinion, but I an understand how a person could reasonably read it that way.
Everyone here wants a good outcome for everyone. I don’t think cancelling subscriptions or the like gets us there, but that’s for other people to decide. But maybe we should let cooler heads prevail, let Paizo and AoN try to work out an arrangement that works better for both. That should be the outcome we all want.
I just hate the personal attacks that people have engaged in here, impugning the character of others, etc. It’s just uncalled for, and frankly, doesn’t reflect well on a community that I have generally been proud to be a part of.
Let’s all do better. All of us.
Go in peace.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
AoN brought in far more money for Paizo than they cost them. If Paizo is too shortsighted to see or understand that, the people making these decisions deserve all the controlled, civil anger they are receiving.I do understand why you feel that way, but in fact you can't know that. And Paizo does have access to information you don't about costs, income, and resources.
One of the problems with anything like AoN as a economic factor is that it can be VERY hard to quantify. And Paizo may have quantified it wrong. But certainly no one outside Paizo has any hope of knowing what the cost/benefit ratio of AoN's commercial license was for Paizo.
This, it is absolutely unquantifiable how much revenue was pushed Paizo's way due to AoN. But I would be comfortable saying it is a lot more than anyone would give AoN credit for.
It was having the rules freely available that made me interested in the first place. I am not an anomaly. I don't think everyone who AoN directed Paizo's direction bought in whole heartedly like I did and sub to all of the rule books, campaign setting, ap's and miniatures. But I know many of us wouldn't have bought in at all if we didn't have access to the game rules like we did.
I have no idea what the true cost of maintaining a license that brings in no revenue. But it isn't a sum zero there. I have paid for tools like pathbuilder. I have donated to community resources over the years. I regularly buy humble bundles where I already own 80% or more of the content. I've bought humble bundles for new players wanting to get in but were not convinced that they wanted to invest into a new game.
All of what I have bought, other than the initial Adventure Card Game subscription I would attribute 100% to AoN being available.
All of that being said, I understand right now AoN isn't going anywhere, but its presentation is going to be vastly different without the artwork. I am sad that I will have to wait for content to be submitted after release instead of on release date. But I have my PDF's and books. Not everyone does. No clue what drove this decision but from both sides I hear that there were likely missteps in communication leading to where we are now. That is unfortunate, but we are where we are. I don't think that there is any version of this where the new limitations being put on AoN being under community use instead of licensed partner isn't going to rub a portion of our community the wrong way.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
According to the facebook posts i have seen they are still providing AoN with the books, https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1DxSJz9AnN/ it is in the comments here. So literally all they are doing is taking away the artwork.
Maybe because the old agreement is still valid until 24 july.
Anyway, even if the AoN currently has access to new PDFs to prepare itself to get new content, probably all its efforts are currently focused into remove the images from the site and adjust the web design so that things do not become broken due to the tight window of time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A Constructive "Third Way" for Archives of Nethys and Paizo
<snip>
This actually seems reasonable if the statements made here are true. If Paizo would be willing to come back with nonprofit direction on the table, that would make a lot of sense. We aren’t exactly gonna change the US law system in this condition, so this is certainly a useful alternative.
Although the explanation part of this message sounds AI (titled one to two sentence segments), which makes me hesitant to trust wholeheartedly.
You would, seriously, be shocked.
<snip>
Okay well this makes a lot more sense. No one ever really provides actual insight as to what is meant by “costs” for lawyer/ip management, always just corporate talk and trust-mes. People who work in the law and executive industry definitely want to keep the image of being smarter than everyone, and seem to do whatever they can to muddy the water/keep it that way to the public under guise of professionalism.
Thanks for the insight again, Now I’m just sad that US law is so hostile for those that aren’t massive corpos!
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay well this makes a lot more sense. No one ever really provides actual insight as to what is meant by “costs” for lawyer/ip management, always just corporate talk and trust-mes.
Yep.
And if I DID work for Paizo right now, I'd not have felt comfortable giving all those examples, because SOME people would think I WAS giving info on existing Paizo licensing negotiations with a nudge and a wink. And if someone negotiating with Paizo thought that, I'd have potentially tanked something that could keep the lights on.
Luckily at the moment I am just doing freelance work, rather than being on salary anywhere, and I'm not even freelancing for Paizo atm. So I am not as limited in sharing some of the INSANE things that game companies have to deal with. If any negotiator asked about me, I can be disavowed in entire honesty by any company as a well-known nutjob weirdo with no insider info. :)
The balancing act of professionalism and trying to inform game communities about some of the harsh, often DUMB realities of rpg publishing is not easy. And it is much, MUCH harder for anyone drawing a salary from one of those game companies.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even overtly negative outcomes that prove in retrospect what we've already gotten is actually Paizo's best effort, such as removing images from Demiplane which would show the legal expenses they claim are real and not an excuse.
Note that Paizo DOES make money from Demiplane. So the cost of dealing with images from Demiplane could be MUCH higher than the cost of dealing with images from AoN, and it could STILL be ENTIRELY true the legal expenses for the AoN deal are too high, and the same expenses for Demplane aren't.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even overtly negative outcomes that prove in retrospect what we've already gotten is actually Paizo's best effort, such as removing images from Demiplane which would show the legal expenses they claim are real and not an excuse.Note that Paizo DOES make money from Demiplane. So the cost of dealing with images from Demiplane could be MUCH higher than the cost of dealing with images from AoN, and it could STILL be ENTIRELY true the legal expenses for the AoN deal are too high, and the same expenses for Demplane aren't.
Owen,
I just want to say ‘thanks’ for coming here and providing some industry insider knowledge and perspective. I think it’s helpful for everyone here, as I doubt any of us actually work in the industry. And, I think it’s instructive to have this sort of information to help us make sense of things. I know your comments aren’t about the current situation (for the reasons you mentioned in another post), but they give us some good context whereby maybe we can better evaluate what has happened.
Thanks for that very important contribution to this conversation - I truly do appreciate it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no separate "dealing with images" from one site or another. Nobody knows where the pirated images came from. If there are images out there, the cost is the same to deal with them no matter how many sites you have hosting images legally.
Although I don't know that any such methods are being used, I CAN assure you there ARE ways to set things up to trace if pirated images come from some specific source.
One simple way would be to have an image you give only AoN, and one you give only Demiplane, and see if one is pirated more than another.
You also CAN but hidden watermarks on these things.
And, especially when people sharing the images think they aren't doing anything wrong, you can just ASK. If when sending takedown notices to 20 people, 18 say "AoN did it!" and only 2 say "Demiplane did it!," that'd be pretty probative.
Again, I don't know any of the details in THIS issue. But I have been involved in things like this and the info is not impossible to get, especially from the people who don't realize they are doing something wrong.
But I do know Paizo has more information about what makes them money, and what costs them money, and what their licenses say, and what the expectations were when they were signed, and even if something like Demiplane's license CAN be changed atm than I do, or anyone outside the company does.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
To the point that I think it's fair to say that Paizo looks like a completely different company without that 8 year partnership. And it would be good to see that acknowledged
Okay, I GET you don't feel Paizo is valuing the relationship strongly enough, and I am fully noting that I cut your very clear description of your desire to see more of that from the quote above.
But, as to the separate issue on acknowledgement, does this honestly NOT feel like an acknowledgement of how great AoN has been?
Archives of Nethys is one of the most beloved and widely used resources in the Pathfinder and Starfinder communities. It has helped players learn our games, explore new ideas, build characters, and share their excitement with friends around the world. We are deeply grateful for everything Archives of Nethys has done.
The dedication, care, and passion that AoN has brought to its work has made it a pillar of the Pathfinder and Starfinder ecosystems. Their efforts have supported countless tables, inspired new players, and strengthened the connection people feel to our worlds.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
If it was at the end of the blog post, yeah, I would agree with you.
Well, thanks for explaining yoiur ppint of view. And, I can see that.
My experience tells me that if the blog had not talked about why Paizo made this decision, many people would claim it was useless fluff.
If it had opened with reasons for why, and ended with how great AoN is, many people would complain the praise sounded fake because it came after saying the site wasn't worth the cost.
None of that is to say your feelings are invalid.
But if which paragraphs Jim spends saying the AoN is awesome and beloved, that it will continue to host rules, and Paizo is still open to discussions are the thing that determine if Paizo is considered to have acknowledged the boost AoN has given to the game, my feeling is there is no message that could be crafted that wouldn't be decried by a significantly sized group.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really appreciate the insights many have shared regarding just how aggressive and foolish internal B2B contracts can be. In fact, I already had a good idea of this, as I know it affects every area of business in practice. I had actually mentioned this in another thread: "People would be surprised by the number of bad decisions made within companies due to ignorance or a lack of options."
However, one thing I’ve learned from working on B2B negotiations is that you should never underestimate your end customers and your community—no matter how good or necessary a contract might be. The moment your customers and community perceive your actions as hostile—and start responding with hostility themselves—no contract can save your company until you regain their trust. And believe me: losing trust is easy, but regaining it is incredibly difficult. That’s why I understand Owen’s point that, for many companies and publishers, a lost customer is gone for good and isn't worth the effort or attention. Yet, it’s crucial to remember that in the internet age, a single customer lost due to dissatisfaction can prevent you from gaining ten new ones by sharing their negative experiences publicly. People naturally tend to place more weight on complaints than on praise, as consumers often react defensively when hearing criticism: "Is this publisher or company really trustworthy? What if they screw me over just like they did to the people complaining?" That’s why companies usually try their best to prevent customer dissatisfaction; while a customer might not leave *completely* satisfied, you should never let them walk away angry, complaining, or disgruntled.
In Paizo’s case—judging by the accounts I’ve read on this forum—I don’t believe people have completely lost faith in the company, unlike what happened during the OGL crisis with Hasbro/WotC. Paizo’s long history of good relations with the community goes a long way toward protecting its reputation; however, the actions taken against AoN were perceived by Paizo’s consumer base as a potentially hostile move. This raised a yellow flag for many: "Is Paizo turning into the new WotC—chasing profits or even just trying to survive? Is this the beginning of the end for the foundation we’ve built—that strong relationship between publisher and consumer? I’d better play it safe and go on the defensive; after all, it might just be a mistake or a misunderstanding, but I need to prepare for the worst and send a message."
Furthermore, there is no point in asking consumers and the community to be reasonable; they aren't reasonable—they are emotional. Above all, they want to be heard and respected. A consumer might be reasonable when things are going well—when they are even willing to hear from the company about potential problems or upcoming difficulties. But if you drop an unexpected problem in their lap and *then* ask for reasonableness, they won't want to be reasonable; they’ll want compensation. At that point, the best you can do is try to meet their demands as best you can, so that you might eventually be able to have a conversation with them again.
At the end of the day, it doesn't matter how profitable or valuable a contract is. If it causes you to lose your customers, bankruptcy is the ultimate outcome—and no contract will be able to compensate you or save you.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a baffling decision whatever the details and circumstances.
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing I hate the most about the whole Diamond thing is how the pain keeps trickling down. OrgPlay got hurt. Employees got hurt. Freelancers got hurt. Customers got hurt. Volunteer partners got hurt. Everyone Paizo has a relationship with got hurt. And while I know on a logical level that these are all moves to try to keep the company afloat after a disastrous setback, on an emotional level it feels like Paizo's lashing out like a scared, wounded animal.
| 23 people marked this as a favorite. |
But, as a separate issue on acknowledgement, does this honestly NOT feel like an acknowledgement of how great AoN has been?
Archives of Nethys is one of the most beloved and widely used resources in the Pathfinder and Starfinder communities. It has helped players learn our games, explore new ideas, build characters, and share their excitement with friends around the world. We are deeply grateful for everything Archives of Nethys has done.
The dedication, care, and passion that AoN has brought to its work has made it a pillar of the Pathfinder and Starfinder ecosystems. Their efforts have supported countless tables, inspired new players, and strengthened the connection people feel to our worlds.
Look man, I say this first of all in that I truly respect you as a creator in the field. Star Wars Saga Edition was IMO the best game that WotC ever put out. I think you are a fantastic designer, and I'm glad to have you with us.
But, on the other hand, I just have to say that I very strongly disagree that that sounds like acknowledgment, it just comes off as hollow words to mollify backlash. when put in the context of everything else that happened.
Tell me if this sounds like what you do to a partner that you respect and feel has greatly helped you:
1. Unexpectedly give them 1 month to do an enormous amount of work scrubbing every image off their website right when you are about to be gone on vacation and be unable to answer emails.
2. Leave them on read for 2 weeks after they ask for more information on a vaguely worded extra option.
3. Only respond to them after they make a public announcement that they have 10 days left before they have to remove everything and explain the details that YOU gave them and provided no further clarification on.
4. Make your own announcement throwing them under the bus saying that "negotiations were still ongoing when they made the announcement" after you failed to respond to their inquiry.
5. Also in the same announcement talk about how they never produced royalties for you.
Paizo holds every bit of the negotiating power from a legal perspective. It very much feels like Jim went into this with the "We have every legal right, we can do whatever we want" attitude because of this. Going into a negotiation starting with "You have 1 month to scrub all the images off your site" does not sound like a person who is approaching the negotiations as though this was a respected partnership.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think Paizo is looking at their resources and choosing to eliminate overhead that doesn't have quantifiable revenue. Maintaining the agreement with AoN has some kind of cost and the revenue AoN generates cannot be shown to balance it. So it is one of the workflow elements that gets eliminated.
Maybe, but I don't see how that is relevant to Paizo and AoN.
I don't think it's as much about actual revenue for Paizo itself and more about when trying to get the Diamond situation resolved, it's difficult to make the (true) position that your finances are in disarray in principle while simultaneously maintaining an arrangement where the things you're trying to recover from consignment are being given away for free on AoN. Demiplane isn't a problem because Demiplane does generate revenue, so it's not something JPC can point at and say 'but you're making losses here too, why are you trying to cut *our* financial position before cutting your own?'
There's very little malice I can see on Paizo's end and the action isn't actually as misguided as it may seem. Talking about the long term isn't very relevant if Paizo can't survive *now*, as Matthew Jaluvka mentioned. If there's an actual bogeyman, it's JPMorgan Chase and Diamond here. Obviously they can't officially mention this either because they're trying to work *with* said financial institution screwing them, and complaining about it to your customers makes them feel like how you feel when you read the last paragraph of Jim's statement.
The thing that can really have been done a lot better on Paizo's end is that Jim really should not be allowed to release corporate statements. And he should follow up on his out of office messages. But if you're a Paizo employee it's not like you can really criticise your own boss when he's being incompetent. We as customers can.
I don't think boycotting is helping anyone here and there's a lot of surface overreaction from people not really putting themselves in Paizo's shoes because they haven't had to deal with corpo problems before. There's things I can say and speculate only because I'm not a Paizo employee, and nothing I say as a customer can be held against Paizo.
I am of course heavily biased by wanting 2e to continue past this crisis as a GM - using Ctrl F on PDFs is annoying enough as it is, and it's not even possible for those who buy the actual books, but if there's no books or PDFs at all that's not an inconvenience I can even complain about, if that makes sense?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The idea that the data being on AoN being ammo for JPC to defend keeping the books is such a weird idea. The Diamond/JPC situation has NOTHING to do with IP and everything to do with physical product.
That product could be literal blank sheets of paper and it would STILL belong to Paizo. What is printed on them is irrelevant to who owns it.
That is like saying I could walk into a Barnes and Noble and steal a copy of Frakenstein because it is in the public domain therefore the store can't claim ownership of a physical copy of the book.
It's nonsense logic and not an explanation that Paizo has put forth at all, just a weird fringe theory that I keep seeing fans throw out that makes no sense.
(And yes, I know, I know, people are going to start coming in about how "Paizo can't talk about it" and continue to believe weird ideas like the idea that the IP ownership of the contents of a book change whether the physically bound pieces of paper can be owned, which no court in the world would entertain as a realistic standard.).
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
…don't listen to the complaints of people who aren't buying your stuff. (And that truism exists for a reason, I promise.)
And this, folks, is the exact point where late stage capitalism earned its degree. Because what this says is that “only customers have a/any point of view” *until* they aren’t customers any more. Because what this says is “if you aren’t contributing monetarily, you aren’t contributing meaningfully”. Because what this says is “community is only about money”. Because what this says is “we are incredibly shortsighted, and have drunk all the paid-for kool-aid to know that only filthy lucre makes people have opinions worth listening to.”
I’m sorry Owen, but if that is a “truism” then you’ve exposed a dirty sorry state of affairs whereby the hobby clearly has no merit nor cultural cachet outside of what the “decision makers in their private chats” think, and everything in this thread - from both those who are superscribers and those who buy nothing but cherish the game, the system and the community - denies that truism.
Sure, no money, no lights, no game. But we have community, and the emperor has no shame.
It is precisely that people who aren’t buying your stuff take the time to “complain” that you might deign to listen. Just because someone is poor, or chooses not to like your product, or just doesn’t buy it doesn’t mean they don’t have a valid opinion. And if you *only* listen to your customers, then you may only get complaints about value propositions, or time-sensitive freight issues, or, more rarely, actual honest to goodness trust and ethics issues.
It seems pithy, and shortsighted. I geddit, time is short, why listen to folks who aren’t supporting you. But that’s exactly what true community is. Warts and all.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
… But I also know no one at Paizo would have heard this idea and thought to themselves "Oh, THAT will be VERY popular." I have no idea what specific factors drove them to make the decision. I just know, for certain, they did not do so out of malice or greed. Desperation or necessity, maybe. I HOPE it was with a clear vision of a total plan that will, in time, ensure no one ELSE gets laid off, the great games keep flowing, and the fans and volunteers are well-served and assisted.
But I am certain it was not done on a whim, and I feel BAD for Paizo being in a place where there have been a LOT of tough, unpopular, painful decisions recently.
Like I said recently elsewhere it is non-remarkable that this decision was made and no-one thought to get ahead of it.
Because it keeps happening. Because it ends up being a “hope this flies through ok” instead of “let’s make this work for everybody”.
You couldn’t try to break things this bad and succeed. You have to actually Critically Fail to lose this much trust. And given that the community *keeps* reacting to these “bad” decisions, that are then *made worse* by corpo-doublespeak, one has to wonder - is the organisation *still* aligned with the community? Is the community still aligned with the organisation.
Currently it seems the answer is: not really.
But what would I know? I don’t really buy anything here. But I love the passion and dedication of some of the staff, love the passion and dedication of the volunteers and the players, and I *still* think PF2R is the most elegant ruleset to use to tell the stories I like to engage in.
It seems pithy, and shortsighted. I geddit, time is short, why listen to folks who aren’t supporting you. But that’s exactly what true community is. Warts and all.
I hope you noted that I followed that by trying to outline how you CAN try to inform a company how to get your business back?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Frankly not really that interested in trying to kill Paizo. Seems to be what people on reddit and now on here are angling to try.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But I wonder if there is a "Third Way" that the community, alongside Paizo and the AoN team, could explore.
Archives of Nethys operates as a public utility in everything but name. If the parent entity behind AoN (Rose-Winds LLC) were to transition into a registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit public charity (or digital archive), it could fundamentally rewrite the rules of this relationship in a way that helps everyone:
Legitimizing the Volunteer Force: Under US labor laws, for-profit LLCs are highly restricted in using unpaid "volunteers." Transitioning to a 501(c)(3) legally shields the AoN creators, officially recognizing their amazing contributors as legal volunteers for a public educational and archival resource.
I'm not based in the US so I can't tell if this would really work as a legal shield, but in principle it's a good way to move forward. And in the case of bleeding assets, it's much harder to criticise a company for contributing to a nonprofit than in maintaining a relationship with another for-profit that isn't generating profit when recovering assets. Especially when AoN has already been functioning as a NPO anyway.
This idea should be examined in detail.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
After seeing all this my belief that so-called "fans" of anything - games, TTRPGs, and whatnot, have surface level understanding of business decisions, an astounding lack of patience, a sense of misplaced entitlement and seem to hate the things they say they like.
Yes, because companies operate like "black boxes" to fans. They make a point of keeping it that way. When these black boxes deliver what fans want, the fans are happy; but when they don't—and the fans don't know why—they get frustrated and blame the company.
And you know the worst part? The fans are right! It is the company's responsibility to ensure that black box functions smoothly and to prevent issues from reaching the fans as much as possible. Trying to justify a problem to others by opening up a sliver of that black box and saying, "Look, it’s actually much harder and more complicated than it seems," doesn't solve the issue. The fan will simply reply: "I didn't know that because you never told me before, and telling me now won't fix my problems or meet my expectations."
Companies don't operate as black boxes solely to hide their inner workings from potential competitors; they do it because they know that if they were to open up, many fans would simply look and say, "Man, I don't know if I want any part of this." At the same time, once a company decides to keep its agreements and internal operations to itself—without sharing them with its customers—it must work hard to ensure that problems within that hidden realm never reach the customer; otherwise, it will suffer the consequences of their frustration.
| 17 people marked this as a favorite. |
it is non-remarkable that this decision was made and no-one thought to get ahead of it.
It is, with commercial contracts, normal and standard and expected to inform your partner before you make a public statement about changes to that partnership.
Paizo felt they were still negotiating. AoN decided to make a public statement without following up on a 2-week old message, or informing their partner they were going to make a statement.
Paizo was unaware there would be anything to get ahead of today, and they made a statement within a few hours. Honestly, I feel BOTH groups fell short of the level of proactive communication that would be appropriate, but AoN are the ones who went public without telling their (still, currently) partner.
As for if Paizo cares about the community? Paizo pays Maya to moderate these forums--MOST game companies have axed their forums. WIZARDs axed their forums as too expensive and troublesome to maintain years ago. Paizo has a Community Use Policy, that is clear and permissive and written down. Most game companies have no such clear policy.
AoN existed for years without this agreement. AoN approached Paizo about getting this agreement when Paizo did an open call. It's pretty clear this agreement had termination clauses which AoN were aware of. Paizo COULD pull the entire CUP and make AoN impossible, and have been very clear they are not doing that. AoN has turned down the offer for free pdfs or an deal to get an extended period for some art to stay up. That's absolutely their privilege.
I DON'T like that this is happening, or that either side feels blindsided by any of these events. But I also don't see the evidence of "disingenuousness" I keep seeing cited.
That's okay. As I noted when I first began posting, I have FRIENDS at Paizo who are, right now, being buried under emails from angry fans, getting posts in DMS on social media, and generally having a crap time of it. Maybe I am too protective of the people I like. maybe I'm an idiot and I am wrong about how people I know and worked with and heard the innermost thought on the game and community and how much they love ever 'Finder player have changed since I haven't been there.
I am, by nature, argumentative, difficult, and bull-headed. Famously so among some folks. And I did NOT mean to ARGUE with anyone. The tight spot Paizo is in through no fault of its out, totally outside this, SUCKS. AoN having to do work to be less visually useful SUCKS. Communities feeling unappreciated SUCKS. Things are raw. Fudge it, I'm raw.
I wanted to just offer some context on things that felt perfectly reasonable and likely to me, given I have seen them over and over at a dozen game companies over 27 years. And I let myself respond to some responses, and want to give MORE context... and now I am arguing with people.
My apologies. This is going to be raw for all of you folks, too.
If someone has a question they actually want my thoughts on please, by all means, highlight it in a post with something obvious like "Question for Owen." Otherwise I'm going to stop jumping in just on responses to my posts. No one needs me cranking up the tension, and the whole point of the community is for everyone (and, yes, not just paying customers) to have their say.
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
Frankly not really that interested in trying to kill Paizo. Seems to be what people on reddit and now on here are angling to try.
Nobody's trying to do that. They just want a corporate entity--who holds all the power in this situation--to stop screwing over passionate volunteers.
Yes, losing artwork and early book access isn't a big deal in a vacuum. However, suddenly walking back on an 8-year partnership with a beloved pillar of the community severely damages consumer trust. It causes one to wonder, what other long-standing bridges is Paizo willing to burn?
Voices and dollars are literally the only leverage the community has. I don't agree with a lot of the hysteria and vitriol, but people have the right to use what little power they have to try to put a stop to that aforementioned bridge-burning. Because said bridge-burning is self-sabotage, and will only cause the company to die faster. Paizo is too small and too dependent on audience goodwill to survive a heel-turn.