Lone Wolf Development Forums

Lone Wolf Development Forums (http://forums.wolflair.com/index.php)
-   Realm Works Discussion (http://forums.wolflair.com/forumdisplay.php?f=67)
-   -   What Pathfinder Content Do You Want to See First? (http://forums.wolflair.com/showthread.php?t=56795)

rob October 18th, 2016 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exmortis (Post 236409)
Those are two different products with two different stores. So You would have to buy the product on both, or the 3PP doing the release would have to make both available I would think.

If the content is being sold separately for the two products, then separate purchases would be required.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exmortis (Post 236409)
For my take, if I decided to share out my Daede campaign, it would include the Daede.user file I have created to support the campaign in HL. But I am not a publisher for money on it, it would be just a dude sharing his work for others to use if they so desired.

In your case, you could easily leverage the approach that I outlined above for @daplunk.

ShadowChemosh October 18th, 2016 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rob (Post 236414)
You should never be sharing ".user" files directly. You should be generating an export file to contain those files. Once you do that, the user just double-clicks that file and HL sucks it in and does the right things with it automagically.

To build on this see THIS article on LW website on how to build the .hl file that Rob is talking about. Yes it talks about the iPad but all version of HL can suck in the "export file" (ie .hl file).

Quote:

Originally Posted by rob (Post 236414)
All you need to do is add a single "Foreign Object" snippet to the entry point topic for your exported RW content. This snippet is assigned the HL file you created above. And you can include some GM Directions atop that snippet to tell users what the file is and does, along with instructions to just launch the file from within RW. When the user does that, HL gets launched and the file gets sucked in.

This to me opens up a whole can of worms actually of potential issues. I will wait to see how the content market actually works before asking questions. I will for now safely assume that Rob has already foreseen those and worked them all out. :)

rob October 18th, 2016 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daplunk (Post 236410)
This is where I go back to some of my other comments in that Hero Lab and Realm Works need to become closer. One store, one cloud solution, one login that manages your license issues.

Given the two integrate it would not make sense to have to buy the content twice.

There will be users who want the Hero Lab stuff without Realm Works. There will be users who want the Realm Works stuff without Hero Lab. And there will be those that want both. That leaves us with two options: sell them separately or require users to pay the combined price for both when they only want one piece of it. We think users clearly would prefer the former option.

A common misconception is that users are paying for the same content multiple times. That couldn't be farther from the truth, as that would mean the exact same work is being done for writing the original material (by the publisher), creating the Hero Lab files, and getting everything folded neatly into Realm Works. I think everyone here on these forums is well aware that those are three RADICALLY different efforts. Yet they still get conflated with some regularity.

That being said, your proposal is absolutely a good one regarding a closer integration of the two products. In fact, that's something we're actively working towards behind the scenes right now. You'll be hearing more about that in the months to come. Once that happens, though, you'll still see a clean separation between the two products, at least for quite some time. The only thing we'd be able to do better is provide a discount to someone who wants both the Hero Lab AND Realm Works material, which is something we'd love to offer but currently cannot.

rob October 18th, 2016 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShadowChemosh (Post 236416)
This to me opens up a whole can of worms actually of potential issues. I will wait to see how the content market actually works before asking questions. I will for now safely assume that Rob has already foreseen those and worked them all out. :)

Um, maybe. Maybe not. I'd vastly rather you flag the concerns NOW and have me confirm that it's already been considered than get blind-sided by something I overlooked in a couple months. :)

RonnieMonster October 18th, 2016 05:10 PM

I'd like to see large amounts of complex content in Realm Works first. Ideally, I want everything (yeah, I'm a Pathfinder junkie), but my dream is for the Rise of the Runelords adventure path already entered into RW, since that's what my group's getting me to run.

kbs666 October 18th, 2016 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rob (Post 236414)
You should never be sharing ".user" files directly. You should be generating an export file to contain those files. Once you do that, the user just double-clicks that file and HL sucks it in and does the right things with it automagically.

So...

All you need to do is add a single "Foreign Object" snippet to the entry point topic for your exported RW content. This snippet is assigned the HL file you created above. And you can include some GM Directions atop that snippet to tell users what the file is and does, along with instructions to just launch the file from within RW. When the user does that, HL gets launched and the file gets sucked in.

Everything is ready to go, and it just requires a single snippet be added to your content! :)

This opens up some exciting possibilities.

A campaign author could provide not just a RW realm but a customized HL export file that automatically had the campaign's languages, deities etc. available in HL without the purchaser needing to do a thing.

DaFranker October 18th, 2016 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rob (Post 236401)
(...)
The one big concern I have with our revised Content Market approach is that it may become "the Wild West" for a short time. The original CM model positioned us as sort of "curating" the available content, since users could not share content outside of our ecosystem. Without that chokepoint in place, I can see multiple users providing the same or overlapping material, and it could even become "competitive" on some level. That's going to be confusing (and very annoying) for everyone. So we (Lone Wolf) may have to become involved in the process to some extent. I'm just not sure how that will unfold yet.

This is something that I'm definitely losing sleep over these days, as it's going to have a qualitative impact on the overall experience for everyone. This is probably the one biggest drawback accompanying the revised plan, but we felt the pros far outweighed the cons, and it seems the user community agrees with that view. We're still working to figure out how best to handle this wrinkle.

If it's going to be the Wild West for a while, perhaps what you need is simply some Sheriffs, to keep the metaphor.

Let the users go wild with things. It's a large new free open world. But for various community efforts, give us the tools to set up "mayors" and "sheriffs", people who coordinate community content creation efforts and who can gate the user-created content for inclusion in community packs.

Basically, the wikipedia approach. Would that work?

kbs666 October 18th, 2016 06:44 PM

Alternatively, why worry about it at all?

If several content creators produce something similar then let them compete against each other. If it is something the community wants people will find the approach they like best and use it.

Look at the Steam Workshop. For a popular game many different modders may do essentially the same thing. People post reviews and the community figures out which ones are good and which ones aren't.

ShadowChemosh October 18th, 2016 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rob (Post 236418)
Um, maybe. Maybe not. I'd vastly rather you flag the concerns NOW and have me confirm that it's already been considered than get blind-sided by something I overlooked in a couple months. :)

Fair point. My concern would be now that you just turned RW into a source code repository tool that it has to be allowed to "update" the source file. The .hl file that contains the .user files is simply not guaranteed to work with each new update to the Pathfinder HL game. That is not a put down just a simple statement of fact. So the .hl file in the snippet has to have a way to be updated/changed/fixed.

Based on your comments before the content market data can be used in a way that the snippet would "point" to the data. In other words a full copy of the snippet/data would not need to be duplicated into each persons realm. My assumption is that when the data that is being pointed/referenced is updated that a person would be notified. Hence the same could happen to get a new .hl file to everyone.

I said you must have taken this into account as RW needs to be able to take into account changes/fixes/errata to published rules/adventures. But sense I have not seen the content market stuff yet I am not 100% sure.

If the above is not possible then the idea of supporting a secondary update URL in addition to the .hl file could be done. The GM Snippet could have info on setting up the URL into HL. So that future updates would happen from HL not RW. That is an alternate solution that is both good and bad.

The next issue I was seeing was that publisher ABC puts out a .hl file. They stop supporting the RW stuff or maybe go out of business. For community stuff the person simply gets bored of gaming and leaves. The .hl file stops working a year down the line when a new official Pathfinder update comes out. Another person (like myself) fixes the .hl file but now I have no way of getting the fixed file to everyone as I don't have authority to update the Realm the HL file is in. Leaving many people that don't check forums unable to use the HL part of what they got. :(

You asked but I am feeling this is derailing way off the threads topic... :o

rob October 18th, 2016 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaFranker (Post 236422)
If it's going to be the Wild West for a while, perhaps what you need is simply some Sheriffs, to keep the metaphor.

Let the users go wild with things. It's a large new free open world. But for various community efforts, give us the tools to set up "mayors" and "sheriffs", people who coordinate community content creation efforts and who can gate the user-created content for inclusion in community packs.

Basically, the wikipedia approach. Would that work?

There's one critical distinction wherein the core problem lies. Everything for wikipedia is wholly contained within wikipedia. So a "sheriff" would be someone that assists us within an ecosystem we controlled. Alas, users will be able to distribute content independently of us. As such, there is no way to appoint anyone "sheriff" and give them any actual authority whatsoever.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:55 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® - Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
wolflair.com copyright ©1998-2016 Lone Wolf Development, Inc. View our Privacy Policy here.