| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are plenty of other threads discussing this change to the official online rules already. I'm not wanting to duplicate them here.
For this thread, I am just noting that with there not currently being any official rules online - no 'online rules' link in the banner menu at the top of this page - I am not willing to post links to rules. I'm not going to link to non-officially recognized websites no matter how correct their information is.
So the question then is, how do we do rules citations here when discussing the rules. So far, all I can think of is book and page numbers. People will have to go find the corresponding reference in whatever rules source that they use - whether that is a physical book or pdf, or one of the unofficial online rules sites such as Archives of Nethys.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
For me personally, AoN will remain the "official" searchable rules reference, even if is no longer official.
From a practical standpoint, I think most people will agree. We're all still going to use AoN.
When they assign the new 'official' will you only post those links, Finoan?
Probably. Unless they are paywalled.
My reasoning:
The official status is important to me. It prevents arguments about how valid the rule citation is. Such as we have when giving citations that are links to a game developer talking on YouTube.
Some 3rd party sites also include 3rd party content. d20pfsrd does that a lot. It would cause confusion if the official online rules included 3rd party content.
If the official rules are paywalled, then it wouldn't do me any good to link to them - even if I myself have access. Because there is no guarantee that whoever I am talking to also has access.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If anybody is claiming that the contents of AoN are fake news in order to push their rules argument, the lack of an official online resource is quite possibly the least relevant concern in the matter.
Also, from my experience, most game companies rely on volunteer work to keep the playerbase informed. I used to play League of Legends and Warframe, and despite these games' companies making millions, even billions in yearly revenue, their best and most accessible sources of information are still third-party, volunteer-driven wikis. Their own official resources are scant, poorly-organized, outdated, and in some cases nonfunctional -- I remember looking at a champion's page on the LoL website and getting hit with a whole bunch of JSONs in lieu of human-readable text. AoN is Paizo's equivalent, and is what allows Paizo to not need to make any effort to share their rules online outside of their paid products. Although there have been very occasional lapses in data quality, because it all seems to be entered manually, those lapses are very quickly corrected, and the site I think is bar none the best for quickly looking up a rules element, including during play and even with an official rulebook on hand.
To clarify, I'm not planning on no longer using AoN at all. I still use it for my games and such. I would still post links to AoN on places like Reddit if I still posted there.
But here on the official Paizo rules forum, I really think they should have official online rules.
If they discontinue their agreement with their current online rules provider, that is their right to do so. And I will honor and respect that decision.
Fully.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be clear: Paizo discontinuing their agreement with AoN does not make AoN a less reliable resource all of a sudden. Their coverage of new content will come much later, won't include images, and may scrub certain proprietary names, but the rules featured on the site will still be just as accurate as they are now.
While I do agree that game companies should be the owners of their games' best source of information, and should hire people for the job instead of relying on unpaid labor (which Paizo still tried to skim money from in AoN's case), the fact of the matter is that most companies don't spare the resources for this work even when they have cash to spare. Paizo unfortunately is in a very difficult financial situation and seems very intent to cut costs, not increase them, so I wouldn't be surprised if we never saw an official resource short of a special agreement with Demiplane.
To be clear: Paizo discontinuing their agreement with AoN does not make AoN a less reliable resource all of a sudden.
Find anywhere where I said it would.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Find anywhere where I said it would.
Sure:
For this thread, I am just noting that with there not currently being any official rules online - no 'online rules' link in the banner menu at the top of this page - I am not willing to post links to rules. I'm not going to link to non-officially recognized websites no matter how correct their information is.
So the question then is, how do we do rules citations here when discussing the rules. So far, all I can think of is book and page numbers. People will have to go find the corresponding reference in whatever rules source that they use - whether that is a physical book or pdf, or one of the unofficial online rules sites such as Archives of Nethys.
This is you stating a refusal to refer to unofficial rules websites.
The official status is important to me. It prevents arguments about how valid the rule citation is. Such as we have when giving citations that are links to a game developer talking on YouTube.
This is you explaining that official status is a mark of reliability, with the implication that unofficial sources of information are debatable.
It therefore does not take a genius to observe that AoN's status downgrading from semi-official to fully unofficial would make it a less reliable resource in your eyes, hence your stated refusal to refer to them from here on out. In all cases, this sounds like a storm in a teacup to me; AoN will continue to provide accurate information and there doesn't seem to be anyone contesting the site's accuracy with regards to the rules, so I fail to see what the issue is with regards to having a credible rules reference online.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed Teridax.
AoN becoming less official than it was, doesn't make it less accurate or reliable, not inherently anyways.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are misunderstanding and misinterpreting what I said.
For this thread, I am just noting that with there not currently being any official rules online - no 'online rules' link in the banner menu at the top of this page - I am not willing to post links to rules. I'm not going to link to non-officially recognized websites no matter how correct their information is.This is you stating a refusal to refer to unofficial rules websites.
That is me assuming that AoN is correct, but that it isn't necessary for my concerns. (that is what "no matter how correct their information is" means).
I am assuming that AoN is completely and perfectly correct, up to date, and exemplary in every way other than official sanction from Paizo. But it is that official sanction part that is the basis for all of my reasoning here.
The official status is important to me. It prevents arguments about how valid the rule citation is. Such as we have when giving citations that are links to a game developer talking on YouTube.This is you explaining that official status is a mark of reliability, with the implication that unofficial sources of information are debatable.
I am not saying that the official status makes things more reliable. I am saying that it makes the citation less attackable. There is a significant difference there that you are not taking into account.
-----
Does anyone remember what the name of the logical fallacy is when someone misrepresents someone else's claims and then attacks that misrepresentation?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unfortunately Finoan, even though it isn't your intention by saying an official source is the most valid (especially regardless of accuracy) you're creating an external view the official source IS more correct and that other non-official sources are less correct.
I understand that isn't your intention, but for 90% of that's how it would be viewed.
Most people don't care about official vs unofficial. Only about accuracy.
If Paizo created an official source tomorrow, that was horribly inaccurate about everything, practically no one would use it and would lambast you for using the official but inaccurate source of information.
Currently, when it comes to questions of rules and citation, the best that can be done is to have the official print/PDF with the latest errata. Which actually creates a problem for printed sources, since they don't have errata integrated. And pdf actually suffer from this too, since they don't get updated until it's time for a new print. You just have to know errata exists...except for AoN which had updated the rules text to include errata as it was published (to the best of my knowledge).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be clear, Finoan: "reliable" does not just imply accuracy, it simply means it is something you can rely on (the definition is in the word!). You stating you can't rely on AoN as a rules reference anymore because it's unofficial is a clear indicator that you no longer see it as reliable -- perhaps you may think it is still accurate, but you still do not see it as fit for purpose when it comes to referencing rules or resolving these hypothetical rules arguments. You can try to weasel your way out of this corner you've painted yourself in however you like, the core is the same: you're attaching an unreasonable amount of importance to the official status of an online information resource in this context, and are making an unworkable request to assuage a concern you appear to be alone in having. This so-called issue of official status with AoN is a complete nothingburger.
My preference on rule citations is always the printed source with book and page citations, or a note from FAQ/errata if not in a printed source along with a link to that document.
I think linking to a reliable online repository is a good addition to the book-and-page cite, but wouldn't link to it alone. My preference would be to use an official source if one exists, but AoN is especially good for also giving page cites for their sources which is not always true of other sites.
Most people don't care about official vs unofficial. Only about accuracy.
Well, I am not most people. I have made that perfectly clear before.
In this case I am applying the Best Evidence Rule to these rules debates. I am anticipating heated rules discussions getting derailed because someone decides to attack the source of the rules that their opponent is using. It wastes time and mental effort having to answer that accusation and prove that the rule source is accurate. Why is it better to have that as a risk - even if it is a minor one?
Is anyone going to respond, mitigate, or refute any of my reasoning here based on something other than a mischaracterization of me or what I have said?
Is anyone actually trying to argue that we shouldn't have or use an official and freely available online rules resource? That somehow things are better without that?
I'm not sure why this is a hot take.
My preference on rule citations is always the printed source with book and page citations, or a note from FAQ/errata if not in a printed source along with a link to that document.
I think linking to a reliable online repository is a good addition to the book-and-page cite, but wouldn't link to it alone. My preference would be to use an official source if one exists, but AoN is especially good for also giving page cites for their sources which is not always true of other sites.
I will often give a book/page reference but the answer if often a combination of book and FAQ where you have to combine them to get the answer; it's why AON is so popular because it does that for you AND makes it a single readable rule VS the book rule plus something like 'replace the 3rd and 4th sentences in the 3rd paragraph to "X,y and z and remove the 5th sentence."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I use whatever has the most up to date, best structured web site that costs me the least amount.
I use AON because they fit that criteria right now.
I used to use PFD20 SRD. But their layout fell behind AON as did the accuracy and amount of their content.
I'll always use whoever has the most up to date, best structured web site that costs me the least amount.
As far as consistent rules, I have a strong influence over how my group's games run. Anything that seems broken or problematic I will fix and implement just as anything that seems too weak and non-competitive I will fix. So rules arguments aren't a problem at my table, though I do prefer clear, consistent rulings as it makes it easier for all.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
before AON got their partnership people linked to that (or d20pfsrd back in the day) so I don't really see that changing.
If you want official and online... buy stuff on Demiplane. That's your other choice.
I don't think there's anything to really 'refute' here. Yes, official backing is nice, but Paizo decided they don't want that.
I think turning away from AoN is giving the corporatocracy a win they don't deserve, but if it's a dealbreaker for you that's fair.
That said I feel like if you jump into rules discussions calling AON links fake, it's not going to be really helpful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
AoN is nice because basically every link has the rules source right there, so even if you're dubious you can just go check yourself, unless you don't have the book.
But if you don't have the book then the only way to "be sure" is to ask the other person to, I dunno, screenshot the pdf, I guess? That's the most "official" source you're ever gonna get.
Define "official" in this context?
I ask, because if you crack open a recent book, it often says something like this (emphasis in original):
This book refers to several other Pathfinder products, yet these additional supplements are not required to make use of this book. Readers interested in references to Pathfinder hardcovers can find the complete rules of these books available for free at paizo.com/prd
Thus, paizo.com/prd is official rules according to this book.
That URL also happens to go to Archives of Nethys. That might change on the 24th, but until it does Paizo's own books say that AoN is an official rules source. Thus, if you accept the hardcover an official rules source, the thing it says is an official rules source must also be one.
AoN is nice because basically every link has the rules source right there, so even if you're dubious you can just go check yourself, unless you don't have the book.
But if you don't have the book then the only way to "be sure" is to ask the other person to, I dunno, screenshot the pdf, I guess? That's the most "official" source you're ever gonna get.
I suppose you can't always screenshot the pdf if there's been errata
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose you can't always screenshot the pdf if there's been errataAoN is nice because basically every link has the rules source right there, so even if you're dubious you can just go check yourself, unless you don't have the book.
But if you don't have the book then the only way to "be sure" is to ask the other person to, I dunno, screenshot the pdf, I guess? That's the most "official" source you're ever gonna get.
Absolutely true, though at least there is a page for official errata here on the site for people to check!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Absolutely true, though at least there is a page for official errata here on the site for people to check!I suppose you can't always screenshot the pdf if there's been errataAoN is nice because basically every link has the rules source right there, so even if you're dubious you can just go check yourself, unless you don't have the book.
But if you don't have the book then the only way to "be sure" is to ask the other person to, I dunno, screenshot the pdf, I guess? That's the most "official" source you're ever gonna get.
The FAQ page isn't exactly user friendly, using page numbers vs subjects and not having any kind of search option. This means you have to know exactly what you're looking for and find the page numbers before finding the errata you want. So track down the PDF section, screenshot that, track down the errata and screenshot that and then possibly do some copy/paste/removal to get the finished rule...
Someone would REALLY need it to be official to not just use AON and instead jump through those loops.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do feel like AoN is in the position where it being official or unofficial is just a formality (disregarding anything else going on as a result). While I understand and sympathize with wanting an official source, I don't think that it changes much in terms of its reliability as a source, especially since it's very easy to use.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In this case I am applying the Best Evidence Rule to these rules debates. I am anticipating heated rules discussions getting derailed because someone decides to attack the source of the rules that their opponent is using. It wastes time and mental effort having to answer that accusation and prove that the rule source is accurate. Why is it better to have that as a risk - even if it is a minor one?Is anyone going to respond, mitigate, or refute any of my reasoning here based on something other than a mischaracterization of me or what I have said?
I guess most of us think un/official is simply unimportant. Accuracy and usability is important.
And more than that, if there becomes a debate as to "which rules sources takes precedence" we would simply need to compare the text of each source. The most authoritative source is the latest book with errata (which might be a separate document). So within the context of an argument, someone would need to go to the proper book and confirm what the text says to identify which source is accurate. But honestly, this remains a problem even if there is an "official" digital source because the source may have erroneous text entered by many means.
But we don't have that (a perfectly digitized copy of the books with errata) as a link that can be shared on the internet.
AoN was the closest, and for the foreseeable future remains the closest most accurate thing.
In any event, I think the waste/risk is so minor in terms of arguing about the validity of a rules source that to me personally, it just doesn't matter.
If ultimately your point is "We need an official rules source (that is basically AoN in terms of what we want it to be as a community)" then I think everyone would agree. If your point is "Paizo should just buy AoN and employee those volunteers" then I would also agree.
What exactly is your point? If your point is to say you're going to start ignore AoN as a rules source, I think everyone else who participates in the discussion will ignore you for ignoring AoN.
Like the changes affecting AoN are mostly:
- They no longer have license to use Paizo's images that aren't available for general use.
- They will no longer be receiving books in advance of their release so they can digitize them for the website, they will have to acquire a copy then digitize it after the street date.
- They no longer have the imprimatur of "being the official rules resource."
But given the track record of the people at AoN, I don't think there's any reason to suspect that they regularly got rules *wrong* when digitizing them, certainly transcription errors will happen, but they tend to fix those and if the actual language on AoN differs from what's in the book, then someone can double check that with the book.
|
I agree with Finoan here.
Official and correct are not the same thing.
However, I expect that this point is moot. Paizo advertises the rules are available online for free. That places an expectation (not an obligation) that they will provide said rules. On July 24th or 25th, Paizo will launch their new official rules site, and we will need to evaluate whether it is more or less accurate than AoN.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On July 24th or 25th, Paizo will launch their new official rules site, and we will need to evaluate whether it is more or less accurate than AoN.
This is news to me. Do you happen to have a link to where this was announced?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm confused to that too, unless they want to do the same to Demiplane.
|
|
This is news to me. Do you happen to have a link to where this was announced?On July 24th or 25th, Paizo will launch their new official rules site, and we will need to evaluate whether it is more or less accurate than AoN.
I said it was a expectation, not an obligation. Paizo has admitted that AoN put the news out ahead of them.
Paizo has 20 years of providing basic support for their games. It would be hugely embarrassing and chaotic if they just suddenly failed to provide a promised service.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Paizo will launch their own official rules ite" really sounded like you were making a confirmed statement.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is news to me. Do you happen to have a link to where this was announced?On July 24th or 25th, Paizo will launch their new official rules site, and we will need to evaluate whether it is more or less accurate than AoN.
I said it was a expectation, not an obligation. Paizo has admitted that AoN put the news out ahead of them.
Paizo has 20 years of providing basic support for their games. It would be hugely embarrassing and chaotic if they just suddenly failed to provide a promised service.
Paizo stopped providing free online rules for their games back in 2018 when they outsourced "the official rules source" to AoN. So Paizo hasn't done this for quite a while already: they just supported the people who were doing it and blessed them as the official source.
They've now stopped supporting those people.
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Paizo announces next week that Demiplane is the new "official rules source". I also wouldn't be surprised if they do nothing and AoN remains the official source despite no longer having any support from Paizo.
I would be absolutely shocked if Paizo actually stood up their own website for it.
This is news to me. Do you happen to have a link to where this was announced?On July 24th or 25th, Paizo will launch their new official rules site, and we will need to evaluate whether it is more or less accurate than AoN.
I said it was a expectation, not an obligation. Paizo has admitted that AoN put the news out ahead of them.
Paizo has 20 years of providing basic support for their games. It would be hugely embarrassing and chaotic if they just suddenly failed to provide a promised service.
Paizo stopped providing free online rules for their games back in 2018 when they outsourced "the official rules source" to AoN. So Paizo hasn't done this for quite a while already: they just supported the people who were doing it and blessed them as the official source.
They've now stopped supporting those people.
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Paizo announces next week that Demiplane is the new "official rules source". I also wouldn't be surprised if they do nothing and AoN remains the official source despite no longer having any support from Paizo.
I would be absolutely shocked if Paizo actually stood up their own website for it.
I feel like moving to subscription based rules might be the future. But if they did, we should expect more constant rules update and errata to correct or fix issues.
It's understandable not to fix things with books in print or even PDF once finished. If you do online subscription rules, you should keep them constantly updated.
My buddy thinks they should move more towards the VTT market with a full VTT web site that allows their game to be played online with a web site Paizo builds and controls. He thinks building high quality VTT webs sites is the future of RPG games like this.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like moving to subscription based rules might be the future. But if they did, we should expect more constant rules update and errata to correct or fix issues.
It's understandable not to fix things with books in print or even PDF once finished. If you do online subscription rules, you should keep them constantly updated.
My buddy thinks they should move more towards the VTT market with a full VTT web site that allows their game to be played online with a web site Paizo builds and controls. He thinks building high quality VTT webs sites is the future of RPG games like this.
This sounds almost exactly why people are liking streaming less and less. More subscriptions, less content from each subscription, and DRM-enforced content that can be taken away without needing a reason. It's also what's going with D&D, which players are not happy about.
This sounds almost exactly why people are liking streaming less and less. More subscriptions, less content from each subscription, and DRM-enforced content that can be taken away without needing a reason. It's also what's going with D&D, which players are not happy about.I feel like moving to subscription based rules might be the future. But if they did, we should expect more constant rules update and errata to correct or fix issues.
It's understandable not to fix things with books in print or even PDF once finished. If you do online subscription rules, you should keep them constantly updated.
My buddy thinks they should move more towards the VTT market with a full VTT web site that allows their game to be played online with a web site Paizo builds and controls. He thinks building high quality VTT webs sites is the future of RPG games like this.
Paizo has to pay the bills. They have to position for this internet age. Paizo is not looking to gouge customers, but are you even sure Paizo isn't making these changes to ensure the stay in business? Would you prefer Paizo went out of business trying to give their game away for free?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like moving to subscription based rules might be the future. But if they did, we should expect more constant rules update and errata to correct or fix issues.
It's understandable not to fix things with books in print or even PDF once finished. If you do online subscription rules, you should keep them constantly updated.
This is extremely pricing dependent. If its cheap enough it's of interest. If it's not... yeah.
It also makes the barrier to entry a lot higher because these days people see yet another subscription and immediately tune out unless they're already invested.
My buddy thinks they should move more towards the VTT market with a full VTT web site that allows their game to be played online with a web site Paizo builds and controls. He thinks building high quality VTT webs sites is the future of RPG games like this.
Your buddy thinks the same Paizo that struggled to get a store working should run their own VTT?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo has to pay the bills. They have to position for this internet age. Paizo is not looking to gouge customers, but are you even sure Paizo isn't making these changes to ensure the stay in business? Would you prefer Paizo went out of business trying to give their game away for free?This sounds almost exactly why people are liking streaming less and less. More subscriptions, less content from each subscription, and DRM-enforced content that can be taken away without needing a reason. It's also what's going with D&D, which players are not happy about.I feel like moving to subscription based rules might be the future. But if they did, we should expect more constant rules update and errata to correct or fix issues.
It's understandable not to fix things with books in print or even PDF once finished. If you do online subscription rules, you should keep them constantly updated.
My buddy thinks they should move more towards the VTT market with a full VTT web site that allows their game to be played online with a web site Paizo builds and controls. He thinks building high quality VTT webs sites is the future of RPG games like this.
There are multiple ways to. Not going the greediest and customer-hostile way is always an option.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love Paizo and want them to succeed, but I cannot hold them to a lower standard.
Besides, it's not like it's been working for Hasbro despite everything they have that Paizo doesn't.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like moving to subscription based rules might be the future.
I hope you're wrong. I feel like this would kill interest in Pathfinder Paizo.
Part of the opening that draws in a lot of new players is "Hey, you can look at the rules for free and try this out with 0 financial commitment from your side if you like".
I think if Paizo moved to saying Demiplane was the only official digital rules source people would mostly ignore it (I don't think it's going to convince a substantial number of people to sign up for Demiplane). People would continue to use AoN. And if there were other plays that tried to force people into paying for rules in some other way with no free access (which would violate the ORC I think) then it would be the death knell for the company. Now, to be clear I don't think this is what's happening. Just postulating what would happen if this was the course of action taken.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo has to pay the bills. They have to position for this internet age. Paizo is not looking to gouge customers, but are you even sure Paizo isn't making these changes to ensure the stay in business? Would you prefer Paizo went out of business trying to give their game away for free?
I understand the need to pay their bills.
But their is a line between monetizing and getting compensated for you working and pushing away customers. I don't know where that line lies. It mostly depends on how much we as users/customers/fans value Paizo's work.
My preferred method for Paizo would be to raise the price of physical media while providing access to the basic rules text for free. Which has been the model...for basically forever.
If that stops being the model because they don't believe they can raise the price of the physical media to maintain the revenue to continue operation....well that would unfortunately mean (to me) that Paizo would need to shutter their operation. That's not the outcome I want. But I also think restricting access to paid only options would drive away users/players/fans. It would violate a very basic part of the relationship we've had. I personally wouldn't be involved in Pathfinder any more.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I cannot see paizo launching their own SRD. They supposedly don't even have the funds to allow a third party website to use pictures due to the risk of unauthorised use, where are they going to get the money to launch an expansive website that would need constant updates?
The most that is going to happen is Paizo will christen demiplane as the new official source, and honestly I don't even know if they'll do that, at least not this close to the dispute with AoN.
I cannot see paizo launching their own SRD. They supposedly don't even have the funds to allow a third party website to use pictures due to the risk of unauthorised use, where are they going to get the money to launch an expansive website that would need constant updates?
The most that is going to happen is Paizo will christen demiplane as the new official source, and honestly I don't even know if they'll do that, at least not this close to the dispute with AoN.
It's not about "funds to allow a third party website to use pictures". It's about the cost of lawyers to draft special agreements (and maintain them) and also to monitor unauthorized use by other entities (which have easy access to the pictures for unauthorized use). I don't know what Paizo financial situation is, but I think you're grossly misunderstanding the scope of the cost to Paizo in terms of maintaining lawyers for this activity and defending against unauthorized use which can lead to battles and loss of ownership (if not executed in a timely fashion). For Paizo it likely boils down to not gaining much from this, while having this expense that doesn't generate much of a return. And, considering what AoN will actually lose (mostly pictures) it isn't a huge negative impact to the community or the usability of AoN's site.
An analogy (albeit a poor one) would be deciding to stop loaning your lawn mower to a friend who said they pay you every time they used it. Except they don't use it, so you don't get paid for it. And you actually have to pay for them not use it because you drafted up some legal documents that require you to pay fees for the arrangement. It's not that you actually care that much about them using your lawnmower. Or even not get paid. But you're kind of annoyed about having to pay fees to maintain an arrangement that isn't really benefiting you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo has to pay the bills. They have to position for this internet age. Paizo is not looking to gouge customers, but are you even sure Paizo isn't making these changes to ensure the stay in business? Would you prefer Paizo went out of business trying to give their game away for free?I understand the need to pay their bills.
But their is a line between monetizing and getting compensated for you working and pushing away customers. I don't know where that line lies. It mostly depends on how much we as users/customers/fans value Paizo's work.
My preferred method for Paizo would be to raise the price of physical media while providing access to the basic rules text for free. Which has been the model...for basically forever.
That's the challenge, because physical media is getting more expensive and it's reaching a point of pricing people out. Like, Impossible Magic is $100 in Canada, before tax. There's only so much more room to raise prices before people just decide they can't afford or don't need it.
That's a problem restaurants are having around here a lot lately: even past successful ones are stuck in this situation where costs keep going up but their customers are balking at paying more because prices are going up faster than income for most folks. There's been a rash of closures in the last year because the math isn't working.
That's part of why so many companies are chasing whales now: the K-shaped economy theory suggests that some folks are doing a lot better while most folks are doing worse, but the ones doing better have piles of money to throw around.
I don't really have an answer on how to square that circle. It's a tough problem.
If that stops being the model because they don't believe they can raise the price of the physical media to maintain the revenue to continue operation....well that would unfortunately mean (to me) that Paizo would need to shutter their operation. That's not the outcome I want. But I also think restricting access to paid only options would drive away users/players/fans. It would violate a very basic part of the relationship we've had. I personally wouldn't be involved in Pathfinder any more.
Yeah a lot of people came here because of the community rules use aspect and if you dump that and make the whole game a subscription, a lot of folks will leave. If the folks who stay are paying more, it might wind up making sense revenue wise, but it would diminish the presence of Pathfinder in the TTRPG space considerably.
|
|
I cannot see paizo launching their own SRD. They supposedly don't even have the funds to allow a third party website to use pictures due to the risk of unauthorised use, where are they going to get the money to launch an expansive website that would need constant updates?
The most that is going to happen is Paizo will christen demiplane as the new official source, and honestly I don't even know if they'll do that, at least not this close to the dispute with AoN.
It's not about "funds to allow a third party website to use pictures". It's about the cost of lawyers to draft special agreements (and maintain them) and also to monitor unauthorized use by other entities (which have easy access to the pictures for unauthorized use). I don't know what Paizo financial situation is, but I think you're grossly misunderstanding the scope of the cost to Paizo in terms of maintaining lawyers for this activity and defending against unauthorized use which can lead to battles and loss of ownership (if not executed in a timely fashion). For Paizo it likely boils down to not gaining much from this, while having this expense that doesn't generate much of a return. And, considering what AoN will actually lose (mostly pictures) it isn't a huge negative impact to the community or the usability of AoN's site.
An analogy (albeit a poor one) would be deciding to stop loaning your lawn mower to a friend who said they pay you every time they used it. Except they don't use it, so you don't get paid for it. And you actually have to pay for them not use it because you drafted up some legal documents that require you to pay fees for the arrangement. It's not that you actually care that much about them using your lawnmower. Or even not get paid. But you're kind of annoyed about having to pay fees to maintain an arrangement that isn't really benefiting you.
I know, I'm just simplifying, but I'll try and make it clearer in the future.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I cannot see paizo launching their own SRD. They supposedly don't even have the funds to allow a third party website to use pictures due to the risk of unauthorised use, where are they going to get the money to launch an expansive website that would need constant updates?
The most that is going to happen is Paizo will christen demiplane as the new official source, and honestly I don't even know if they'll do that, at least not this close to the dispute with AoN.
It's not about "funds to allow a third party website to use pictures". It's about the cost of lawyers to draft special agreements (and maintain them) and also to monitor unauthorized use by other entities (which have easy access to the pictures for unauthorized use). I don't know what Paizo financial situation is, but I think you're grossly misunderstanding the scope of the cost to Paizo in terms of maintaining lawyers for this activity and defending against unauthorized use which can lead to battles and loss of ownership (if not executed in a timely fashion). For Paizo it likely boils down to not gaining much from this, while having this expense that doesn't generate much of a return. And, considering what AoN will actually lose (mostly pictures) it isn't a huge negative impact to the community or the usability of AoN's site.
An analogy (albeit a poor one) would be deciding to stop loaning your lawn mower to a friend who said they pay you every time they used it. Except they don't use it, so you don't get paid for it. And you actually have to pay for them not use it because you drafted up some legal documents that require you to pay fees for the arrangement. It's not that you actually care that much about them using your lawnmower. Or even not get paid. But you're kind of annoyed about having to pay fees to maintain an arrangement that isn't really benefiting you.
This is giving Paizo way too much deference here. Maintaining a long term stable license with straight forward terms should have a near zero cost.
Using your analogy, why are you hiring a lawyer to audit your lawnmower sharing agreement often enough that you're claiming it's a significant expense? That's weird af.
Paizo has to pay the bills. They have to position for this internet age. Paizo is not looking to gouge customers, but are you even sure Paizo isn't making these changes to ensure the stay in business? Would you prefer Paizo went out of business trying to give their game away for free?I understand the need to pay their bills.
But their is a line between monetizing and getting compensated for you working and pushing away customers. I don't know where that line lies. It mostly depends on how much we as users/customers/fans value Paizo's work.
My preferred method for Paizo would be to raise the price of physical media while providing access to the basic rules text for free. Which has been the model...for basically forever.
That's the challenge, because physical media is getting more expensive and it's reaching a point of pricing people out. Like, Impossible Magic is $100 in Canada, before tax. There's only so much more room to raise prices before people just decide they can't afford or don't need it.
That's a problem restaurants are having around here a lot lately: even past successful ones are stuck in this situation where costs keep going up but their customers are balking at paying more because prices are going up faster than income for most folks. There's been a rash of closures in the last year because the math isn't working.
That's part of why so many companies are chasing whales now: the K-shaped economy theory suggests that some folks are doing a lot better while most folks are doing worse, but the ones doing better have piles of money to throw around.
I don't really have an answer on how to square that circle. It's a tough problem.
If that stops being the model because they don't believe they can raise the price of the physical media to maintain the revenue to continue operation....well that would unfortunately mean (to me) that Paizo would need to shutter their operation. That's not the outcome I want. But...
I agree with your observation, and agree that I don't know how to solve it.
I think we're absolutely in a K shaped economy situation.
Warframe, a game I love, sells digital skins and stuff that have no game tangible impact other than looks, but sell for a decent amount of money. Paizo needs something like that. I just don't know what that is.
Using your analogy, why are you hiring a lawyer to audit your lawnmower sharing agreement often enough that you're claiming it's a significant expense? That's weird af.
I'm not an expert in laws, defending ownership, etc but I think you're underestimating how expensive that can be. Especially for something that is giving you no benefit.
I'm not saying I'm happy about the situation, but if I'm paying for something that I'm getting nothing out of...I'm probably going to quit paying for it.
This is giving Paizo way too much deference here. Maintaining a long term stable license with straight forward terms should have a near zero cost.
Using your analogy, why are you hiring a lawyer to audit your lawnmower sharing agreement often enough that you're claiming it's a significant expense? That's weird af.
From Paizo's description, the problem seems to be less "the deal with AoN itself is expensive" and more "the deal with AoN has had a side effect of us sending Cease & Desist letters to people that keep thinking art being on AoN means its free for anyone to use".
Those aren't the same thing and that indirect cost seems to have become part of the problem.
(I also suspect companies like Demiplane and the others that pay for commercial licences were not happy with their free competitor getting extra stuff, but I have no way to prove that. But this does throw them a bone because now commercial partners can get access to stuff before AoN does and thus can have it available day 1.)