Originally Posted by
strei
attacks on the messenger not the message was most of what was posted previously, but only my replies to those get moderation attention, as expected lol
in any case, let me address your initial post then.
calling random developers hackers is something taken straight out of any political propaganda or smear campaign. maybe you are trying to use the term more literally and disregard the connotations and meaning it carries in present day culture, but it sets the tone for your perspective immediately. a guise of unbiased opinion delivering an agenda.
the design philosophy of fostering a thriving mod community is indeed a fundamental part of foundry, but this does not mean the number 1 priority is not the average consumer, which it is. and there's almost 2 years for development proving that. just having great API and a habitat for modders does not need to be mutually exclusive with aiming for the average user.
unlike roll20 and FG, there is no centralized marketplace in foundry. not understanding this isn't your fault however. and navigating the web space to find the products is certainly harder and more effort, a lesser experience, than having everything in 1 marketplace. but the number of adventure or compendium type modules, let's call it content modules, far outnumbers the feature modules by a scale of 10 to 1 or, most likely, above. the average foundry user has gotten used to just expecting foundry content straight from their favourite content creators. which are people living only from making content for VTTs in general, or even some, just foundry in specific.
it is also possible to port any content sold on roll20 to foundry. this is mostly effortless, not perfect but ok.
so to reiterate, while there is definitively a fault on the foundry ecosystem to be found in this aspect, the argument about content to feature module ratio and what it illustrates is fallacious and shows your lack of understanding of matters. FOSS by nature of being open and free, can be put anywhere, like the official module list. paid content needs to be gated. which hides it from the free official module list and not all artists wanted to use the premium partner program and chose to monetize their products directly, getting a bigger cut of the profits.
also, skyrim was sold 13 times, as in, different versions, up to a decade after it came out, unlike almost every videogame, because it is a "code-twiddler's paradise" despite it being a very faulty product. other similar products have long since barely moved units. Minecraft's success is also related to this. roblox is the biggest grossing platform of the day, because how easy it made making experiences on it to anyone wanting to.
they are stuck because they want to. there are often alternatives to 1 module, and without mention of what this feature was that was so important that help someone back, i can't speak much to it.
i can also recount the experience of many people who live on foundry's latest version, get regular updates and don't have extensions break almost ever. they don't update to major system releases on release day however. a healthy wait of 1 week, or a month for those more conservative, is usually the sane option. this while on dnd 5e, and having all features FGU has in terms of automation.
The Forge does nothing to help GMs with maintenance except make it easy to find outdate versions of anything. the same can be a achieve if a user backup their data before doing changes that might end in disaster. some would say this is basic computer practices, but i understand a lot of users do not do it. and some might be limited in their ability of doing it.
at the end of the day, foundry gives the user all the power in their experience. this is a blessing and a curse. because users who are more limited will have a more limited experience. and users will damage their experience without necessity as well, like in any software really. so while there is a fair distance to perfection in this aspect, it is also not the hell some love to portray. most user experiences are found in the middle, not matrix heaven and not installing 1000 modules, modules that clearly should not be mixed, updating on release day of a major revision with session 1h away and then panicking when 1 module breaks entirely.
so, on the previous point you praise The Forge for doing legwork for users, which is keeping outdated versions of modules. but now you fault the platform, foundry, for keeping outdated modules that were since abandoned. ok. and yes, the professional company supports the product, and integrates these extensions into the product, at their pace. if it is a 3rd party extension it is not given official support. that said, given how the most popular extensions have more support from enthusiastic code heads than most competitions official products if the user can sense how to discriminate they might have a better experience than on some other platforms...
what are you going to do if WotC pulls the plug on any existing platform? deals from 2 decades ago aren't going to hold on forever. while in all seriousness 5e will likely last a long time, WotC may make their own VTT at any point now and pull their content from competition entirely.
even the FG staff state competition is good. WotC, and Hasbro, are not agile corporations. any platform that is less than 15 years old is not getting their support. and this is their fault. Paizo, you know, from pathfinder, arguable the number 2 in recognition and being popular, have EVERYTHING in terms of core books in foundry.
you want to support a stable ecosystem? then don't be a them whims of corporations out of touch with the present that operate like a dictator. instead, help foster a healthy market where you can sell your content to any consumer on any platform easily and effectively. without also being gauged in a super high percentage of your sales price to be able to sell in a given storefront rather than a sensible %.
