you're lashing out aggressively at the people you're talking with, and keep ranting with these massive walls of text that don't have anything to do with whats being said to you, the mistake was when you mentioned WOTC gave more away than paizo in the SRD, I corrected you and you ranted to me about something I didn't say anything about, so I pointed out what a better response likely would have been.
If your intent is to hold whether or not you try the game hostage, so that people kow-tow to you, I'm not interested in playing those games with you?
WotC has given away what used to be trademarked material. NOT ALL of it, but a ton of it. Paizo couldn't even use half the creatures (Fire Giants, Hill Giants, Red/Gold/Green/Black/White Dragons...etc) without what WotC allows and has given away.
No company has given or allowed as much of their iconic and identifiable ideas and information out as WotC has.
Case in point...the Pathfinder Game would not exist without the stuff WotC has given away. More games on the market, past and future exist due to what WotC has given away for free than those that exist from what Paizo has allowed and given away on the market for their games. The ideas are the same, but the impact and amount that is given in regards to property value are vastly different. In effect, what WotC gave away in theory cost them ALOT more than what Paizo has given away. This does not mean that WotC didn't have a focus on selling rulebooks for D&D. In fact, to say that offering rules free online means they are not after of focusing on rulebooks really is not true. It makes no sense. It has no basis in what actually happened or happens. There's no reason to even bring it up. Trying to indicate (as was what was done) that this means that they aren't selling or focusing or rulebooks is a strawman. It has no relation to the focus nor the amount of sales being made!
In addition, they also include 5e in their game rules and SRD now (and I think this is what people are thinking, they don't even think about the OGL and the earlier rules and books focus of 3.5 that WotC had) which, though not as great an impact as the earlier rules postings, are additional items that also include a great amount of rules and information. WotC's information they give out for free is organized in a way that is easy to download (rather than needing internet access) as well, and offers an easier way for some to find monsters and other creatures which are also open source with open stats and abilities. This is not to say that the 5e SRD and Game rules offered are better, but both the PRD and 5e versions have their advantages and disadvantages.
But both are a moot point in regards to what their sales are based upon today. Their sales are not connected to the PRD or the SRD or the OGL. Their system may be based upon it or the basis of it, but they are not the reasons for why or what they make money off of. It has no real relation to how their sales are being focused or how many sales are being made in regards to their company support.
Most of the sites that host this information are not done for profit and are not controlled directly by either, and the offical site that hosts Pathfinder rules online is now the Archives of Nethys...which I believe is actually a non-profit.
This is something Paizo has talked about at length. so people acting as if they are suddenly surprised at this is kind of...well...wierd. Especially since those contesting this are the ones who are saying PF2e is selling well and there is no need for changes...as my comments actually suggest the idea that Paizo may not actually be in financial difficulties. (edit: Now I could be convinced otherwise, but there needs to be some logical and reasonable information posted regarding that. It would be nice to think that they are still solely focused on AP as their primary money maker...but things in recent years seem to say they are doing other than that, including Paizo themselves...but I AM open to other things).
I mean, we can continue talking about other sites and what they are selling, or we could discuss what Paizo has said about their more recent sales (though, admittedly, mine is two or three years out of date, my information came from right before they went on with the 2e plans and were more on their discussions of how well PF1e was actually selling), though ironically, it seems some of PF2e fans would rather argue against that and instead try to say...what exactly???
In regards to your original statement, it didn't point out anything except to claim I made a mistake. The only item I was actually posted that I was actually interested in was thinking about giving PF2e another shot. You said I made a mistake, and that comment on giving it another shot was the actual item I was questioning about whether to do or not to do. If you did not intend to comment on that (and perhaps you didn't read the entire post I made? Just like it seems others who have commented on it derogatorily have not...which means you probably won't read this entire post either...) perhaps you should be MORE specific in what you are saying.
And YES...it IS something that is discouraging. You want NEW players to PF2e...then show support and help them out instead of being on the gang up on them portion. You want to help, then perhaps be more constructive in your comments than destructive. Sometimes short is not helpful...and being more specific and directive is.
You do not agree with my assessment of Paizo's comments, then find more RECENT comments that support a different directive as well as ACTUAL EVIDENCE (none of this hypothetical stuff that has nothing to back it up that people have tossed around in this thread a LOT) of it. I am open to other opinions, but normally they need to have something to back them up.
I never planned for this entire line of discussion, AS I SAID, the basis of what I was pointing out is that (because people OBVIOUSLY DO NOT READ the post here)...
Yes, I think that APs could support the company at this point, but not at the same economic standards they have now. They have increased in size and sales, and with that the focus of what they sale has also changed.
I also included information that has been talked about before (maybe not here) about how Pathfinder sales have actually increased (according to Paizo) during the time of 5e's rise in sales and how that may be relevant to their current sales. It also explains that PF2e may be doing better than what percentages may indicate from sites like Amazon.
I then supported it with information that you disagreed with in part (and you disagree directly with the idea apparently specifically that PF2e is doing well or may be doing better than what Amazon indicates because they also have the PF2e rules free online). If so, then post WHY it is relevant and HOW it is relavant rather than just saying...nany, nany, boo, boo, I don't like you...type stuff.
PS: The BIGGEST irony of this entire thread thus far. I have united everyone in this thread in one degree. It seems a majority are agreeing that Paizo is not making money off of PF2e, which probably indicates that PF2e IS actually in financial trouble in that regards and selling less than PF1e or other systems. That's the craziest thing for them to come together to agree upon considering how strongly they were disagreeing on that very item just a few short posts prior to this. Funny for them to all agree on that, but that's what it appears currently. My posts ironically united both sides in that agreement from all appearances. At least with the most current arguments against Paizo's comments on how well their sales are doing that were given above from those who disagreed with my post (now, there may be some that disagree with those ideas given, or how trustworthy Paizo as a company is in it's PR on sales is...which could be relevant I suppose, but no one really brought that up directly).
Not that I agree with that assessment (I'm more of an I do not know sort of arena and unsure of how well it is or is not doing, I can see the points made by the evidence provided but also see how it could be from what I've heard from Paizo) but hey...we all think what we think.