Pathfinder 1E Would You Buy DDI-Pathfinder?

[Mistwell]

I know a lot of folks simply would never buy anything from WOTC again. Fair enough, I'm not going to begrudge that opinion.

But assume WOTC and Paizo entered into a joint venture called DDI-Pathfinder. WOTC's current set of D&D tools, such as the character generator, compendium, monster builder, bonus tools such as the encounter builder and ability generator and other stuff, and future DDI tool products (but not the magazines) are adapted to work well with Pathfinder.

It's a separate product from the existing WOTC DDI, sold on its own, through the Paizo website, for a different price and different terms than the WOTC DDI.

And assume also that both WOTC and Paizo get a share of your subscription fees for this DDI, as agreed between those two parties, representing the use of the WOTC technology and the use of the Paizo content.

Is that something you would consider purchasing, if the price and terms of use were fair in your opinion?

 

[mach1.9pants]

I would be in faster than lightning. With bells on! However I am not a 'no-WotC'er (I subscribe to DDI); but the DDI tools are just awesome. A Pathfinder version would be great, especially the monster builder.

Never going to happen though, and I doubt Paizo have the size to do their own, which is a pity.

 

[Nikosandros]

I don't think that it's something that's likely to ever happen, however I would definitely be most interested.

BTW, I'm already a DDI subscriber, so basically I agree fully with mach...

 

[Shemeska]

Never going to happen though, and I doubt Paizo have the size to do their own, which is a pity.

They probably could do it, given that WotC made the functional portions of the DDI present at launch with a small team that had, as I recall being told, six months to make it happen. The bits that have appeared as functional since that time have been done by a progressively smaller development team as people have been fired or contracts not renewed because of a hiring freeze.

Paizo could probably easily do it if they avoid the management and outsourcing hell that plagued WotC.

That said, if it was totally by Paizo I would strongly consider purchasing it once my current 3.x campaign was over and my next campaign started up (probably a planar Golarion game, using PF rules). If part of it was licensed from WotC I might debate the issue quite a bit, but probably 50/50 would pay for it.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

I'm not for giving wotc any of my money at all, but I'd be hard pressed not to consider it. I think that I'd eventually pass as I use HeroLab for all of my charcter building needs.

 

[gamerprinter]

Can it be DDI like...

There's lots of good, many FREE applications out there from MapTools, to PCGen, and I'm sure some developer could code up a monster generator. Paizo or a 3pp could create the website, negotiate the usage contracts, hyper -connect it all to the PRD, and something very much like the DDI could be conceived without any sort of collusion between WotC and Paizo necessary. I think its a doable idea - beyond me as a developer, though.

You don't need WotC to make a better DDi.

GP

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

1. I really don't want ot give WotC any money after the pdf issue, and other reasons.
2. I'm not sure I'm even that into Pathfinder anyway

Overlooking those two caveats...maybe. I've never been very interested in monthly/annual service style scenarios for games. I'd never pay a subscription to play a videogame like an MMO. But if it had a character builder...all the rules up and available would certainly be convenient. I'd be somewhat tempted.

 

[Wicht]

Paizo gets enough of my money every month as it is, without adding an electronic subscription.

That being said, a monthly subscription for online tools does not appeal to me. I'd much rather just buy a single program to do what I might want, maybe with the ability to purchase addons later.

 

[Mistwell]

There's lots of good, many FREE applications out there from MapTools, to PCGen, and I'm sure some developer could code up a monster generator. Paizo or a 3pp could create the website, negotiate the usage contracts, hyper -connect it all to the PRD, and something very much like the DDI could be conceived without any sort of collusion between WotC and Paizo necessary. I think its a doable idea - beyond me as a developer, though.

You don't need WotC to make a better DDi.

GP

True, but I am not asking if it could be done different. I am asking if you would buy the product outlined in this thread.

Elsewhere I was asking if people would but a WOTC 3.5 DDI for a fixed one-time price or through installment payments (since it has no updates).

I am looking into the interest level in WOTC offering the existing DDI for other gaming products, either on their own (as in 3.5) or as a joint venture with and through other companies (as with Pathfinder).

If successful, it could be adapted to many other games, such as a Mutants and Masterminds version, or a Spycraft version, or an Arcana Unearthed version, or a 1E version, or a OD&D version, or whatever. You buy the [Game]-DDI, as a one-time fee for older games or a subscription fee for continuing updated games, all based on the same basic technology engine as all the other [Game]-DDI versions.

If successful, it would allow for WOTC to make money from third party games, and their own older games, and allow third parties to make money from WOTC's technology. And it would be incentive for WOTC to complete additional tools, such as the online gaming tool, eventually.

 

[Mistwell]

Paizo gets enough of my money every month as it is, without adding an electronic subscription.

That being said, a monthly subscription for online tools does not appeal to me. I'd much rather just buy a single program to do what I might want, maybe with the ability to purchase addons later.

That's the same system actually. The current WOTC DDI lets you get the program with existing updates, and then cancel your subscription after one month (or you can just buy a single month). You don't get the updates of course, unless you buy an additional month later. What I am proposing would work the same way.