Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 7650757" data-attributes="member: 17106">No, but I think it's fair to say that Paizo is setting the standard for the rpg market right now.If something cooler (or as cool, or even close to as cool) is available for free, then charging for it is not cool. If the cost to the consumer is unreasonably high compared to the cost to the producer, that's also not cool. If the cost to the consumer is monthly, but the cost to the producer is one-time (with, possibly, minimal upkeep), that's not cool.Mainly because there's no SRD for people who don't want to pay anything to start. Again, open gaming is the gold standard. Regardless of what a company's rights are, why should we settle for less? Wouldn't you rather that the same content you pay for would be available for free? And isn't that a realistic expectation, given what Paizo is doing, and what WotC did while it was using the OGL? And how much does it really cost to produce rpg content?Logically, I agree with your argument. The reason I'm so demanding of WotC is because I consider D&D to be the most popular and culturally significant rpg, and thus them to a significant extent the caretakers of the hobby. (Also, I believe fish shouldn't be sold because of the harm that fishing causes, regardless of whether I eat them or not, but that's a tangent). But yes, the companies can do what they want. But I won't pay a subscription fee. That's what I'm trying to say.No. This thread is about future directions, and we're talking about intermediate steps in that direction. DDI is not charging to play the game, but it is charging for things that are similar to what was previously free, and thus is such a step. It is worth noting that in other arenas, the battle between different business models for gaming, subscriptions among them, is quite pitched, and consumers are getting taken advantage of in some cases.You're right about that. I've made efforts to "vote with my money", by supporting low-cost, open content products, but unfortunately I don't have as much money to spend as I did a few years ago (or hopefully will in the near future), regardless of what the marketplace is doing. C'est la vie.I believe so. Not that that's a bad thing; I envy that. It would be great to have a gaming group meet on a regular basis over a long period of time. But I think that realistically, there are a lot of intermittent, transient, part-time, and lapsed players out there. My own perspective is that I've had some consistency in players over the years, but it's getting tough to make regular sessions, and I don't see it getting easier, and we don't even have kids.I'm always tinkering with new rules myself, but I find it unlikely that, even in a diverse range of perspectives, many people will have a constant high demand for gaming products over a long period of time. Some demand for some, very little for others.That's true. I don't know about big companies though.Having observed an erosion in the quality of the gaming market (from my perspective, perhaps not WotC's). I think it's really important to be an active consumer. I understand that inflation happens, but when I see the quality of products for my game of choice going down and new costs appearing, I think it's important to fight back. As is our broader reality in the modern world, when our interests as individuals are opposed to those of institutions, we have to dig in and fight, or those institutions will walk all over us.</blockquote>

Verification