# EN World GameStore Closing



## Morrus (Oct 26, 2006)

Dear ENGS Publishers,

You may have heard rumours of some major impending changes in the PDF Retail market.

EN World GameStore is closing, effective immediately.  In its place will be an affiliate store owned an operated by RPGNow and DTRPG under their new merged company, OneBookShelf.

If you are an RPGNow or DTRPG publisher, you will hear about this separately from those respective retail sites.

We realise that this will raise a number of questions and concerns, and  I will be answering those questions over the next few days.

This arrangement, in the opinion of myself and the owners of RPGNow and DTRPG, will generate you considerably more sales - while at the same time require far less work from you.  You will need to upload your product once, to one site, instead of three.  

All three retail sites have negotiated an arrangement which we hope you feel will be attractive to you:

- If you are an ENGS publisher, the new company (OneBookShelf) will waive the signup fee and provide you with a publisher account.
- In addition, each publisher will be given 100,000 banner ad impressions here at EN World.  Please note that, since the current ad system is integrated into ENGS, there will be a short delay while we make code changes in order to accomodate this.
- Your owed monies will be paid out over the next week.  If you are using PayPal immediate withdrawal, it would help if you could facilitate this my withdrawing your balance as soon as possible.

EN World GameStore and EN World appreciates your past support, and we sincerely hope that this arrangement will reflect positively in extra sales, better customer service, increased marketing and a much simpler, easier process for releasing products for you.

If you have any questions, I will be happy to answer them.  I will also be putting together a FAQ for common questions.

*Please click here to be taken to the new store!​*

Yours,
Russell Morrissey (Morrus)


----------



## Roudi (Oct 26, 2006)

First question on the docket would be, how long to customers have to finish purchases and download products?


----------



## Morrus (Oct 26, 2006)

Roudi said:
			
		

> First question on the docket would be, how long to customers have to finish purchases and download products?




The customer bookshelves will be left in place for the foreseeable future (although the store "around" the bookshelf will no longer be there). So you will stilll have access to your previous purchases.

OneBookShelf will be operating a bookshelf feature of its own.  We've discussed the possibility of merging the two bookshelves, but it is only a possibility at present.  The OBS bookshelf will be integrated into EN World.  Because we can't give OBS your personal details, we are working on a system whereby you can indivudually opt to associate your RPGNow account with your EN World ID.


----------



## jaerdaph (Oct 26, 2006)

Wow, that's an interesting development.

I'd really like to thank the Twin Rose folk for their excellent customer support over the last year or so. Thanks guys!


----------



## Sledge (Oct 26, 2006)

jaerdaph said:
			
		

> Wow, that's an interesting development.
> 
> I'd really like to thank the Twin Rose folk for their excellent customer support over the last year or so. Thanks guys!




Ditto.
I must admit to a little concern here.  ENGS was previously practically tailored to me.  I'm not sure this new setup will actually get me following through with purchases.


----------



## TheLe (Oct 26, 2006)

[imager]http://www.thele.com/thelegames/images/tn/UnorthodoxPirates_tn200w.jpg[/imager]The new One Book Shelf company is intriguing, exciting, and can be a bit concerning. However, we at *The Le Games* fully supports the decisions that Enworld, Dtrpg, and Rpgnow has made.

We fully intend on supporting the new store, and will continue to support the Enworld gaming community. So expect to see more give-aways, press releases, and other supporting services from us right here on these forums.

Enworld will always be a place for the gaming community, and I am certain that it will only get better!

`The Le Games (pronounced Tay Lee Games)
on the web at www.TheLeGames.com


----------



## Treebore (Oct 26, 2006)

Yeah, ENWorld got me to buy many of my PDF's because of ENWorld only sales and discounts. I would probably own a 1/5th of what I own now if it wasn't for ENWorld.

Does this also mean my purchases will no longer help support ENWorld? How about my community supporter discount?

I have a feeling I am not going to be happy about this.


----------



## Urizen (Oct 26, 2006)

As I understand it, Enworld will be an affiliate of  DTRPG and RPGNOW, which means you can buy all the products you like from Enworld by clicking on affiliate links and they will  get a % pf those purchases.

This will allow you to support the Enworld site just as you always have.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Oct 26, 2006)

TheLe said:
			
		

> So expect to see more give-aways...



That's what I like to hear!


----------



## jaerdaph (Oct 26, 2006)

Treebore said:
			
		

> Yeah, ENWorld got me to buy many of my PDF's because of ENWorld only sales and discounts. I would probably own a 1/5th of what I own now if it wasn't for ENWorld.
> 
> Does this also mean my purchases will no longer help support ENWorld? How about my community supporter discount?
> 
> I have a feeling I am not going to be happy about this.




Well, I'm going to wait until the FAQ comes out before I decide that, but I will say that I recently began purchasing most of my PDFs from EN World when RPGNow (and DriveThru) dropped the cash back program, using RPGNow and Drivethru only when the product wasn't available here. I'm hoping there is will still be some kind of discount or incentives for EN World community supporters though.

But be that as it may, I will say that RPGNow and Drivethru both offer *excellent* customer support and service, which is very important.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 26, 2006)

Can I ask what motivated the change? I'm a big PDF customer and I'm curious about the alluded-to changes in the marketplace.


----------



## Ilium (Oct 26, 2006)

Bah. So much for my feeble efforts to collect affiliate credit. 

Good luck with the new arrangement.  I assume if I buy from the "EN World Download Shop" this will be better for EN World than if I buy from RPGNow directly?


----------



## Einan (Oct 26, 2006)

I both hate and fear change. 

Let me be the first to welcome our new OneBookShelf Overlords!

Einan


----------



## Alzrius (Oct 26, 2006)

It's a shame that the ENGS is closing, but I'm glad to see that this is (hopefully) more of a new beginning than an end. If RPGNow and DTRPG are helping to run things, then it can't be that bad. 

All hail the OneBookShelf!


----------



## mhensley (Oct 26, 2006)

Morrus said:
			
		

> You may have heard rumours of some major impending changes in the PDF Retail market.





What rumours would these be?


----------



## Thomas Percy (Oct 26, 2006)

This is very good news. 
No more troubles for The Forge with handling of three shops simultaneously. 

Thanks, and good luck for OneBookShelf!


----------



## dpmcalister (Oct 26, 2006)

I think this is excellent news all round. After all, it's not as if anyone undercut anyone else across the three stores. It was just a case of surfing around to find the store that had the product you wanted. Now, you'll just go to one location


----------



## rpghost (Oct 26, 2006)

For those of you who want to read the press release, you can find it here:

http://forums.rpghost.com/showthread.php?t=49290

Yes ENWorld will be getting supported if you buy from the ENWorld branded store front.

James


----------



## Festivus (Oct 26, 2006)

The only thought flittering about in my head is lack of competition now and what impact that may eventually have on pricing of downloadable product.  

I have used all three stores, though I primarily tried to buy through the EN Gamestore to help support the site.  I am sad to see that layer of support go as well.

I look forward to doing business with this new entity, so long as the prices remain reasonable.


----------



## rpghost (Oct 26, 2006)

Festivus said:
			
		

> I am sad to see that layer of support go as well.




I don't understand that statement. ENWorld will still earn money (probably more) from the new affliate agreement.

James


----------



## Chris Tavares (Oct 26, 2006)

*What about the DRM?*

Does this mean that DriveThru is going to stop requiring DRM/Watermarking, or will RPGNow's products become infected with it?


----------



## Roudi (Oct 26, 2006)

According to my understanding, individual vendors can still choose to release watermarked or non-watermarked PDFs.  If a PDF on RPGNow wasn't watermarked before the merger, it won't be watermarked after the merger unless that publisher chooses to have it so.


----------



## GMSkarka (Oct 27, 2006)

Festivus said:
			
		

> I look forward to doing business with this new entity, so long as the prices remain reasonable.




Just FYI -- we publishers set our prices, not the store.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 27, 2006)

mhensley said:
			
		

> What rumours would these be?




That RPGNow and DTRPG were merging.  I've no idea who knew about it and who didn't (I did, obviously).  I'm assuming there are others who were aware.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 27, 2006)

rpghost said:
			
		

> Yes ENWorld will be getting supported if you buy from the ENWorld branded store front.
> 
> James




This is an important point, guys.

If you buy from the ENW affiliate sotre front (linked above) you are purchasing from the same shop, but EN World gets supported.  So yuo could think of it like this - EN World still has a download store, only now it happens to contain _everyone's _ PDFs - everything that was available at ENGS, RPGNow and DTRPG.

All the links here at EN World will change to point to the new affiliate storefront.


----------



## Dark Psion (Oct 27, 2006)

I have accounts at all three stores (EnWorld, RPGNow and DTRPG), will my account be merged into one listing and one bookshelf.

 

Not that I ever ordered the same book twice, of course.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 27, 2006)

Dark Psion said:
			
		

> I have accounts at all three stores (EnWorld, RPGNow and DTRPG), will my account be merged into one listing and one bookshelf.
> 
> 
> 
> Not that I ever ordered the same book twice, of course.




No - we can't share your personal data with anyone else.  You'll just use your RPGnow account for all three.

As mentioned above, your bookshelf here will stay in place.


----------



## Alzrius (Oct 27, 2006)

As a note, I made a guess, and it turns out that www.onebookshelf.com is already up and running. Check it out, it's quite interesting!


----------



## jgbrowning (Oct 27, 2006)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Just FYI -- we publishers set our prices, not the store.




Gareth, please don't say we publishers set our prices as if that's somehow independant of the vendor's decisions to increase their profits at my expense, and finally, at the expense of the consumer. It's not. I've also noticed that Mike has said the same thing at rpgnet.

To me, that's disinformation and glossing over the fact that, more than likely, the top 15 publishers at rpgnow.com (who were also on DTRPG) will be making less money after this merger because of reduced royalties. They  have decided to decrease my royalties by roughly 9% when the whole picture is looked at. This means my prices have to go up roughly 15% to just maintain what I was making before the "good" news. 

And of course, when I charge 15% more on those raised priced PDFs, they're going to get a 60% increase in their take (compared to old royalty rate and old price PDF). For example: a $10 PDF raised to $11.50 and sold at new royaly rate means I'm making the same money but they're making 60% more.

Nice huh? But we publishers choose our prices. It may look a rose, but it sure don't smell like it.

joe b.


----------



## HinterWelt (Oct 27, 2006)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> Gareth, please don't say we publishers set our prices as if that's somehow independant of the vendor's decisions to increase their profits at my expense, and finally, at the expense of the consumer. It's not. I've also noticed that Mike has said the same thing at rpgnet.
> 
> To me, that's disinformation and glossing over the fact that, more than likely, the top 15 publishers at rpgnow.com (who were also on DTRPG) will be making less money after this merger because of reduced royalties. They  have decided to decrease my royalties by roughly 9% when the whole picture is looked at. This means my prices have to go up roughly 15% to just maintain what I was making before the "good" news.
> 
> ...



I must complement you on your analysis Joe, spot on. Here, Here!

Bill


----------



## Bacris (Oct 27, 2006)

I have to admit, the fact that the new conglomerate is taking up to almost 1/3 of the sale in commissions does stand out as a bit much to me...  For some, this means they're taking in anywhere from 5-15% less off the top than before... especially compared to the ENWorld commission rate, which was more competitive.

I'm also a bit disappointed that only last month, Dreamscarred Press purchased accounts with multiple vendors and now is having everything merged but not being reimbursed any of the costs...  If it had been profitable in that month, sure, that makes sense, but for a small vendor who has not yet grossed a profit from the vendor accounts, it's just a little bit of a slap in the face.

Now, if it does indeed mean more sales, then it might be a good thing... after all 100 sales at 70% is better than 70 sales at 80% - but it's too early to tell and some of these negative aspects stand out more right now, since they are readily apparent and the less tangible possible increased sales yet to be seen.

Put me in the dubious category


----------



## Alzrius (Oct 27, 2006)

Judging from the last few posts, it seems like the new OBS store apparently charges publishers a higher percentage on sales than some stores (I presume the ENGS, but possibly others?) did. Can anyone break it down for the rest of us? I hadn't heard anything about that (though maybe I just didn't do enough searching).


----------



## Bacris (Oct 27, 2006)

From here:

"You earn a royalty of 70% (exclusive) or 65% (non-exclusive) from your sales..."

ENWorld was 80%.  RPGNow was 75% (or 70% if a gold-level vendor).


----------



## trancejeremy (Oct 27, 2006)

FWIW, bear in mind, AFAIK Mr. Skarka works for RPGNow. So he's not just a publisher, he's affliliated with the company.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 27, 2006)

From a customer's standpoint, is the site going to operate more like DrivethruRPG or RPGNow?


----------



## Morrus (Oct 27, 2006)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> From a customer's standpoint, is the site going to operate more like DrivethruRPG or RPGNow?




What, the affiliate store?  Take a look at it.

It's basically RPGnow with EN World's colouring.


----------



## Hackmaster (Oct 27, 2006)

Well, when I first heard the news, I didn't really have an opinion one way or the other. I've had good experiences with RPGnow and didn't care for DTRPG at all.

Now I hear that the new store is increasing their cut of the sales. In all likelihood this will translate directly to higher prices for the consumer, as publishers are now forced to raise prices to maintain any sort of profit margin.

Competition is good for consumers. This merger doesn't sound like something that will benefit me in any way.


----------



## Nellisir (Oct 27, 2006)

Morrus said:
			
		

> If you buy from the ENW affiliate sotre front (linked above) you are purchasing from the same shop, but EN World gets supported.  So yuo could think of it like this - EN World still has a download store, only now it happens to contain _everyone's _ PDFs - everything that was available at ENGS, RPGNow and DTRPG.




Congratulations Morrus.  I'll be buying a community supporter account by the end of the weekend, and probably a few pdfs.  I LOVE that the ENstore follows the RPGNow layout (I assume it more or less -is- RPGNow, just with a different skin laid over it), my wish list is here and accessible...it'd be great if the pdfs I've purchased there and at DTRPG eventually made their way into my "bookshelf"... and yes, it does make me feel better about the direction of the site in general.  I'll be buying pdfs here from now on.

Good job.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 27, 2006)

Cool, that was my preferred solution. Assuming my wish list carries over from RPGNow (no reason it shouldn't), ENWorld will get a cut from now on.


----------



## sckeener (Oct 27, 2006)

I'm more worried about Paizo in all this...don't they still compete with them?

If rumor mill here is correct, then WotC is holding up a hardcopy of Age of Worms, supposedly because they compete with WotC adventures. Then WotC is also supposedly putting a toe into the water of online magazines. Toss in RPGNow and DriveThruRPG merging into OneBookShelf and it makes me concerned for Paizo.

Paizo has good name brand with Dragon and Dungeon, but if WotC ever pulled out the Official label from them I wonder how that would affect sales.


----------



## Mark CMG (Oct 27, 2006)

Cross-post from a thread destined for closure - 



			
				Troll Wizard said:
			
		

> Well so much for competition...




I'm not sure if there ever really was any competition in the vein that you imply existed.  Certainly not directly for the end user/consumer, though it was true for vendors getting varying rates depending on who they used to distribute their electronic products.  And it is also true that some vendors, all of whom will be paying the newly merged eTailor a larger percentage, will pass their increase on to the end user/consumer.  But, since eTailors never actually buy "stock" of electronic products nor set their own prices, there was never really competition in the traditional sense as seen between, say, one brick and mortar retail outlet to another, or even online retailer who hold physical stock in warehouses.

It has been suggested by the future new conglomerate that the merger will incite an increase in sales to more than make up for the increase in the percentage but whether that will actually be the case remains to be seen.  I doubt it will be the case but the decrease in the time required for the vendors to manage several outlets, with uploads and linking and PR might be worthy of a slight increase.

The telling factor, IMO, as to how truly, universally helpful this is to the vendors, in particular, is the push by the new conglomerate to require signed exclusivity agreements to receive the best rates.  At present, it seems like a no-brainer since the bulk of the current so-called competition is part of the merger or becoming affiliates and folding their own storefronts, barring SJG's e23 eStore and Paizo, but the taint it leaves with me is that a handful of people just went through a couple of years of tussling over the pie wedges and, now that they have decided there is a greater benefit in working collectively, the more people they can lock into exclusivity agreements now means less likelihood that _new_ competition will emerge.

For many vendors, myself included actually, there will be little change.  If you want the publisher to receive the lion's share of the MSRP, check their website for the method they suggest you make your purchase.  If you want to support EN World or RPG.Net, buy through their interface affiliate stores and they'll receive a percentage.  If you're a diehard RPGNow.com-er, stick with their interface.  If you prefer DTRPG, stick with their interface.  Eventually, all of the RPGNow.com, DTRPG, and the affiliate interfaces will have you using the same ID and password, so it won't be any tougher to go one route or another.

As has almost always been the case in the past, the prices will likely be the same from store to store no matter which route you choose. no matter which route you choose.


----------



## Psion (Oct 27, 2006)

Thanks, Joe, for the perspective and attendant return to economic reality.

I do appreciate that it could provide ENWorld with an avenue for continued operations.

I do fear that there will be a negative impact on the flegleling PDF market. Many PDF publishers get by on a shoesting as it is.


----------



## Urizen (Oct 27, 2006)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> FWIW, bear in mind, AFAIK Mr. Skarka works for RPGNow. So he's not just a publisher, he's affliliated with the company.




What's your point?

All he said was "publishers set their own prices, not the store."


----------



## Umbran (Oct 27, 2006)

Hackmaster said:
			
		

> This merger doesn't sound like something that will benefit me in any way.




You benefit - if it means some retailer stays open.  I would not be surprised if they weren't particularly stable to begin with.  The pdf market is smaller than the full rpg market - a niche of a niche, so to speak - with not a whole lot of business to share around.  Consolidation may have been the best plan to continue in reasonable business.

Consolidation may also mean more traffic through the place, and thus higher sales numbers for each individual seller, allowign them to continue selling at the same old prices in the long run.

All speculation, of course.  My point being that one can make a credible argument for just about any scenario.  Only time will tell the truth.


----------



## Treebore (Oct 27, 2006)

Urizen said:
			
		

> What's your point?
> 
> All he said was "publishers set their own prices, not the store."





The store certainly effects what price is set by the percentage they demand of the publishers sale.


----------



## Urizen (Oct 27, 2006)

Treebore said:
			
		

> The store certainly effects what price is set by the percentage they demand of the publishers sale.




It does, if you let the higher percentage dictate what you charge. The increased traffic both rpgnow and dtrpg will likely be getting should hopefully offset this.

Maybe I'm just optimistic.

In any case, it still doesn't address why trancejeremy would make that post in the first place, unless he's implying that Gareth is trying to gloss over the impact this merger will have on publishers and by proxy, the customers.

Gareth may have some affiliation with rpgnow, but as a publisher he stands to lose just as much because of the hike in percentages as any other publisher does.


----------



## Twin Rose (Oct 27, 2006)

I'm just going to say thanks to all of you who took a moment to notice the support and service we've been giving at ENGS.  Believe me, emotionally this is pretty hard on me... I had a LOT of great ideas and hard work into ENGS.  In the long term, though, this is likely better for me, Twin Rose Software, and for EN WOrld as a whole.  

But rest assured, you haven't heard the last of me


----------



## GMSkarka (Oct 27, 2006)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> FWIW, bear in mind, AFAIK Mr. Skarka works for RPGNow. So he's not just a publisher, he's affliliated with the company.




That's correct -- full disclosure:  I handle customer service emails for RPGNow.  So not really involved in the decision-making processes at all.

I'm also the owner of Adamant Entertainment, one of the top 15 publishers at RPGNow, and we will be charged a higher rate than we are currently -- but given the increase in exposure and consumer convenience, we're expecting that the small percentage loss will be made up in increased sales volume overall.   In addition, we now only have to upload product to a single site, as opposed to three, and once the new unified site launches, product management will be consolidated as well, so I'm actually viewing that as a considerable savings in my time (which, since I run this as a full-time business, has to be paid for).    As such, my plans for Adamant are unchanged, and we will not be raising our prices.


----------



## Dark Psion (Oct 27, 2006)

Morrus said:
			
		

> No - we can't share your personal data with anyone else.  You'll just use your RPGnow account for all three.
> 
> As mentioned above, your bookshelf here will stay in place.




Went to my account, to my bookshelf and it showed about 20 random books I had purchased at EnWorld Shop, but when I click MORE, it goes to the new products page.

Personally, I would prefer a list, like "View by Products Ordered" link on "My History". I really don't need a Buy option for books I already own


----------



## Morrus (Oct 27, 2006)

Dark Psion said:
			
		

> Went to my account, to my bookshelf and it showed about 20 random books I had purchased at EnWorld Shop, but when I click MORE, it goes to the new products page.
> 
> Personally, I would prefer a list, like "View by Products Ordered" link on "My History". I really don't need a Buy option for books I already own




A buy option?  Your bookshelf doesn't have a buy option.  The wishlist part above it does, obviously.

Does your bookshelf look different to mine?  I've attached a screenshot of mine.  It shows every product I have bought.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Oct 27, 2006)

Does that mean that, technically, there's a monopoly in the PDF retail market?


			
				Twin Rose said:
			
		

> Believe me, emotionally this is pretty hard on me... I had a LOT of great ideas and hard work into ENGS.  In the long term, though, this is likely better for me, Twin Rose Software, and for EN WOrld as a whole.
> 
> But rest assured, you haven't heard the last of me



I hope not! I really liked your ideas!


----------



## Vocenoctum (Oct 27, 2006)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> That's correct -- full disclosure:  I handle customer service emails for RPGNow.  So not really involved in the decision-making processes at all.
> 
> I'm also the owner of Adamant Entertainment, one of the top 15 publishers at RPGNow, and we will be charged a higher rate than we are currently -- but given the increase in exposure and consumer convenience, we're expecting that the small percentage loss will be made up in increased sales volume overall.



Just a question, but if a publisher was present on all three Sites before, how will their sales increase?



> In addition, we now only have to upload product to a single site, as opposed to three, and once the new unified site launches, product management will be consolidated as well, so I'm actually viewing that as a considerable savings in my time (which, since I run this as a full-time business, has to be paid for).    As such, my plans for Adamant are unchanged, and we will not be raising our prices.




Again, as a curiousity, since I'm no publisher, how difficult was it to upload to 3 sites? Did the software take a while or was complicated or something?  I imagine (as long as it's a good format, naturally) it'll be easier to just deal with one format instead of figuring out three different ones, just wondering at the actual time savings.


----------



## jgbrowning (Oct 27, 2006)

Umbran said:
			
		

> You benefit - if it means some retailer stays open.  I would not be surprised if they weren't particularly stable to begin with.




Let me surprise you then. They are stable and profitable ventures. Much so than any of the publishers they are selling. James has made enough to open a brick and morter store, and drivethru is just a company created to benefit white wolf and their 700+ backstock of PDFs.

They're all fine companies and, up to this point, I haven't any conflict or concerns with my relationships with any of them. Even this difference can end up with a win-win situation for them, publishers, and customers — just like removing DRM ended up happily for everyone involved.

joe b.


----------



## Roudi (Oct 27, 2006)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> how difficult was it to upload to 3 sites?



Well, annoying in that the same product had to go through 3 different processes, and be uploaded 3 times in total.  Now, there's one process, one upload.


----------



## jgbrowning (Oct 27, 2006)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Just a question, but if a publisher was present on all three Sites before, how will their sales increase?




For me personally, the growth of the site would have to:

1. Be proportional.
2. Grow 15% to equal my current profit level. This is at the reduced royalties rate resulting from the merger.
3. Grow that 15% from #2 above and beyond than what the three independent sites were already growing. For example if the three were growning at a combined rate of 15% per year, the first year's growth of the new site has to be 30% for me to *maintain* the income I would have received from the three independant sites. And to make that even worse, that growth wouldn't come the first month, which means even it if grows 30% I'm not going to break even until the last month of the year.



> Again, as a curiousity, since I'm no publisher, how difficult was it to upload to 3 sites? Did the software take a while or was complicated or something?  I imagine (as long as it's a good format, naturally) it'll be easier to just deal with one format instead of figuring out three different ones, just wondering at the actual time savings.




It took me about 15-20 minutes per product to upload to the three sites, barring any mistakes on my part or errors on theirs.

joe b.


----------



## Urizen (Oct 27, 2006)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> For me personally, the growth of the site would have to:
> 
> It took me about 15-20 minutes per product to upload to the three sites, barring any mistakes on my part or errors on theirs.
> 
> joe b.




15-20 minutes that could be spent writing another product.


----------



## jgbrowning (Oct 27, 2006)

Urizen said:
			
		

> 15-20 minutes that could be spent writing another product.




A product of which I would receive 10% less on, no?

15-20 minutes that's going to cost me $90 a month? Please be reasonable. I'm only in 15th place in revenue at rpgnow.com. Someone like Phil is going to end up paying $350+ for those 15-20 minutes. I wouldn't be surprised if it's even more than that.

For someone who only makes $100 a month, it doesn't matter much. They're not eating from that. I've been informed that my fixed expense for their service is going to increase 40% and that saving 15-20 minutes of my time per product is somehow a justification for such an increase?

I don't think so.

joe b.


----------



## GMSkarka (Oct 27, 2006)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> It took me about 15-20 minutes per product to upload to the three sites, barring any mistakes on my part or errors on theirs.




Right -- and I was for sale at 3 sites.   That's about an hour.  Per product.   When you're looking at 4 to 6 products per month, that adds up.    I've got other things I could be doing with that time.


----------



## GMSkarka (Oct 27, 2006)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> I've been informed that my fixed expense for their service is going to increase 40%




You're a Gold Vendor at RPGNow, right?   So that rate was 30%.   The new rate for non-exclusive vendors is 35%.    I'm trying to figure out why you're claiming a 40% increase....


----------



## Vocenoctum (Oct 27, 2006)

Urizen said:
			
		

> 15-20 minutes that could be spent writing another product.




If time is that tight, I'm sure he could also be writing new PDF's during that 15-20 process?


----------



## Urizen (Oct 27, 2006)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> A product of which I would receive 10% less on, no?
> 
> 15-20 minutes that's going to cost me $90 a month? Please be reasonable. I'm only in 15th place in revenue at rpgnow.com. Someone like Phil is going to end up paying $350+ for those 15-20 minutes. I wouldn't be surprised if it's even more than that.
> 
> ...





Oh man, I'm so sorry. I didn't mean to  have the post read in a negative light. I was only trying to say that any way to save time could be a good thing.


----------



## trancejeremy (Oct 27, 2006)

Urizen said:
			
		

> What's your point?
> 
> All he said was "publishers set their own prices, not the store."




No, he didn't.  He said "we publishers", implying that he was speaking as a publisher. When in fact, he's an employee of RPGNow as well as a publisher.

This is important because you have him in direct conflict with another actual publisher, who doesn't seem nearly as happy.

Which one is more credible? I'm not saying that him working for RPGNow makes him a "shill", to use his word, but he should have identified himself as such before commenting on a thread like this, IMHO. 

And the whole thing matters because this a very tiny industry, and fans of small companies will want to support companies they like in a way that provides them with the most revenue. One of the greatest things about d20 is that there have been dozens of companies spring up with great new products. Unfortunately, the sad thing is, so few actually make back the money or effort that was invested with it. (Heck, the same can be said for RPGs in general).

And by putting public pressure on this new fangled conglomerate, it's possible they might be forced to reduce their rates to the old levels. 

Or maybe not.  If I were a conspiracy theorist, I could speculate that this is simply a plot by White Wolf (the owners of DTRPG, or rather, the same person owns both) to drive out the competition by making it unprofitable for the little guys to compete...


----------



## jgbrowning (Oct 27, 2006)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Paying $90 an hour (if you take 20 minutes per site per product with 3 sites) *for any service* is ridiculous unless your a damn doctor. I could hire someone at $10 an hour to put up 9 products and come out ahead.




Or a programmer.  Programmers cost a lot - I should know as I am one.


----------



## Mark CMG (Oct 27, 2006)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> You're a Gold Vendor at RPGNow, right?   So that rate was 30%.   The new rate for non-exclusive vendors is 35%.    I'm trying to figure out why you're claiming a 40% increase....





I'm going to venture a guess that he has been a Gold Vendor long enough that his percentage fee is 25% and that he saw that the new Royalty Payment for non-exclusive vendors was going to be 65% (not the fee but the royalty) and has mistakenly called this the 40% loss he is predicting.

*edit* Or am I mistaken, Joe?


----------



## jgbrowning (Oct 27, 2006)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> You're a Gold Vendor at RPGNow, right?   So that rate was 30%.   The new rate for non-exclusive vendors is 35%.    I'm trying to figure out why you're claiming a 40% increase....




My rate is 25%. I've been a Gold Vendor for a long time. I wouldn't be surprised if some vendors are at the old non-gold vendor rate of 20% if they've been there as long as I have.

Those who have been there longest are getting screwed even harder.

joe b.


----------



## jgbrowning (Oct 27, 2006)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> I'm going to venture a guess that he has been a Gold Vendor long enough that his percentage fee is 25% and that he saw that the new Royalty Payment for non-exclusive vendors was going to be 65% (not the fee but the royalty) and has mistakenly called this the 40% loss he is predicting.
> 
> *edit* Or am I mistaken, Joe?




Moving from 25% to 35% is an increase of 40%. I won't be losing 40% of my profits. I'll be losing around 9-10% of my profits, however the new site will gain 40% more profit from me simply by raising their fee.

I don't understand why a weighted fee wasn't used. Actually I do. A weighted fee wouldn't result in a 40% increase in the new site's income *the day of launch* compared to the older site's. It would result in maintaining the same income while also benefitting from the merger's economy of scale (one site down from two). And under that, any "new growth" this site is supposed to create above and beyond the growth experienced by DTRPG and rpgnow.com independantly would be immediatly passed on to the publishers *and the site would make more as well from the increased traffic*.

Using a weighted fee I would bepaying 27% across rpgnow.com and DTRPG. The 9% vrs. 7% descrepancy comes from notincluding ENGamestore in the math.

If they wanted to charge me 3% for the larger site access (and I'm not sure about that because I *already* am at all the sites, so I don't know what "additional" access I'm getting) and for the convience factor I wouldn't be too adverse to such a thing.

Let's be realistic. James and Steve are going to probably make at least 20% more from this site simply by taking the profits out of the publishers hands. I'm talking about $20,000 or more over a year's period.

The products I've already uploaded aren't going to save me any time, are probably not going to have more people look at them since I was on all three sites, but they're going to make me about 9-10% less per sale now.

joe b.


----------



## HinterWelt (Oct 27, 2006)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> My rate is 25%. I've been a Gold Vendor for a long time. I wouldn't be surprised if some vendors are at the old non-gold vendor rate of 20% if they've been there as long as I have.
> 
> Those who have been there longest are getting screwed even harder.
> 
> joe b.



Heck, I haven't been there as long as you Joe and  I just squeaked in at 25%.

Bill


----------



## Mark CMG (Oct 27, 2006)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> Moving from 25% to 35% is an increase of 40%. I won't be losing 40% of my profits. I'll be losing around 9-10% of my profits, however the new site will gain 40% more profit from me simply by raising their fee.




I see.



			
				jgbrowning said:
			
		

> I don't understand why a weighted fee wasn't used. Actually I do. A weighted fee wouldn't result in a 40% increase in the new site's income *the day of launch* compared to the older site's. It would result in maintaining the same income while also benefitting from the merger's economy of scale (one site down from two). And under that, any "new growth" this site is supposed to create above and beyond the growth experienced by DTRPG and rpgnow.com independantly would be immediatly passed on to the publishers *and the site would make more as well from the increased traffic*.
> 
> Using a weighted fee I would bepaying 27% across rpgnow.com and DTRPG. The 9% vrs. 7% descrepancy comes from notincluding ENGamestore in the math.
> 
> ...



*


RPG.Net access (I guess) is worth, what?



			
				jgbrowning said:
			
		


			Let's be realistic. James and Steve are going to probably make at least 20% more from this site simply by taking the profits out of the publishers hands. I'm talking about 20,000 or more.

The products I've already uploaded aren't going to save me any time, are probably not going to have more people look at them since I was on all three sites, but they're going to make me about 9-10% less per sale now.
		
Click to expand...



Well, once the two biggest dogs stop fighting over the bone, fewer scraps are bound to fall to the floor.*


----------



## jgbrowning (Oct 27, 2006)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> RPG.Net access (I guess) is worth, what?




I already have access to the rpgnet crowd via DTRPG direct linking. Perhaps there will be a slight increase from running a mirrored site, but I doubt it given I've already been advertised and directly linked to there by DTRPG.

joe b.


----------



## JohnNephew (Oct 27, 2006)

Over the past couple of years, a lot of publishers were persuaded by an argument like this: "Why not use DTRPG as well as RPGNow?  Sure, we get less money from each sale," they said, "but it's extra money for no extra effort!"

The answer to "why not" is the same answer you get when you ask "Why shouldn't I discount to some customers?  I'll get extra sales today, and I've already broken even on the ones I sold at full price."

The answer is that the people paying full price say next time, hey, we want that deal too!  Or, because as middlemen the "full price" folks are at a competitive disadvantage (either because they have to charge more than the people you give the deal to -- like Walmart vs. local shops -- or because they don't have as big of profit margins to reinvest in their business), they suffer business declines and can afford to buy less from you at full price anyhow.

It hurts to have to pay more now to both, but the publishers had to see it coming.  Signing on with DTRPG was telling the other PDF distributors "you can charge us more".  You can be sure that OBS will be able to charge yet more in the future -- after all, the extra margin will allow them to grow the business, which will justify an even bigger margin.  (Would you rather get 50% of 200 sales or 65% of 100 sales? Besides, you can still sell it on your own website, so those extra sales are just free money, sales you could never make yourself without the big site's reach.)

DTRPG has played this very well -- first attracting some big publishers with the soothing assurances of DRM, to get their toes in the PDF pool (and holding on to them with exclusive contracts at the start); then attracting the independent PDF players with the promise of incremental revenue, per the argument above; and now merging with their biggest competitor.  Just like when eBay hikes its fees, there will be grumbling, but almost all of the frogs will stay in the pot, as it were, because it still looks better than the immediate alternative.

The cherry on top of it all is that OBS is turning publishers' reasonable fears of future commission increases into another benefit for themselves, by offering publishers the chance to lock down today's rate for a term of their own choosing with an exclusive contract.  The more publishers who hedge against future rate changes by writing long durations, the harder it will be for any serious competition in the market to take hold and forestall those increases or reverse the trend.  (They make it easy to sign the exclusive by letting you sell on your own site -- because those sales won't be a threat to them like a rival aggregate site offering dozens or hundreds of publishers could be -- the kind of threat that DTRPG and RPGNow offered each other as rivals.)

But if you're a publisher, what can you do, given how much of the market these two sites represent today?  Even if you weren't lured in by the siren call of incremental sales, your fate was decided by those who were.  Most of your sales probably come from one or both of these sites. The rational thing to do is to submit to the changes, and hope that the promise of bigger total revenues in the end is delivered.  In order to resist the changes there would have to be a massive rejection of the merger by many publishers, changing the numbers for OBS to the point where they would calculate that they would make more revenue in the end by retaining all the publishers, even while taking a smaller cut from each (after all, the added cost of having those extra items in their catalog is trivial, so if you can have them in the OBS catalog it's like extra money for no extra effort).  Given the number and size of publishers necessary to change that equation, is highly improbable that such a thing will happen.

-John Nephew
President, Atlas Games


----------



## Mark CMG (Oct 27, 2006)

Good to hear from you, John Nephew. 




			
				JohnNephew said:
			
		

> OBS





Hmmm.  What an unfortunate acronym.


----------



## jgbrowning (Oct 27, 2006)

JohnNephew said:
			
		

> Over the past couple of years, a lot of publishers were persuaded by an argument like this: "Why not use DTRPG as well as RPGNow?  Sure, we get less money from each sale," they said, "but it's extra money for no extra effort!"
> 
> -John Nephew
> President, Atlas Games




John,

Thanks for the good post. The only reason I used DTRP and sites other than rpgnow.com was to ensure that I wouldn't be overly vulnerable to internet business risks.

For example, if rpgnow.com was hacked by a good hacker and James couldn't figure out how to fix it for a week or so, I wouldn't loose *all* my revenue stream. None of the other sites produced more than 20% of my total PDF revenue and I didn't care to much about that because they were my "back ups".

On a side note, you, and others including myself are being quoted here:
http://www.onebookshelf.com/aboutus.html



> John Nephew, President of Atlas Games:
> "OBS serves our needs in two key ways: First, by allowing us to keep key products available to fans of our games without investing in a reprint; and second, of course, by giving us cash flow from out of print titles."




I'm pretty damn certain you didn't say that about OBS and I'm pretty damn certain nobody else said anything about them either. I think it's indicitive of the larger picture in this merger.

joe b.


----------



## djdurant (Oct 27, 2006)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> Moving from 25% to 35% is an increase of 40%. I won't be losing 40% of my profits. I'll be losing around 9-10% of my profits, however the new site will gain 40% more profit from me simply by raising their fee.
> 
> I don't understand why a weighted fee wasn't used. Actually I do. A weighted fee wouldn't result in a 40% increase in the new site's income *the day of launch* compared to the older site's. It would result in maintaining the same income while also benefitting from the merger's economy of scale (one site down from two). And under that, any "new growth" this site is supposed to create above and beyond the growth experienced by DTRPG and rpgnow.com independantly would be immediatly passed on to the publishers *and the site would make more as well from the increased traffic*.
> 
> ...




Simple solution to your problem...don't sell at rpgnow or dtrpg or OBS... then exactly how much would you be making in sales/profits?

You can complain and cry about how things have turned out, but this was a business decision made by a business for the...wait for it...benefit of that business.

As a customer this rocks! One store front, one point of purchase, and consolidated catalog.

I've operated in a fluid business environment where decisions outside my control had major impact in how I operated. What I did to stay profitable was to adapt, overcome, and realize sometimes I had to change how I operated to take advantage of new situations. Change happens. Complaining, whining, and coming off as less than professional in a public forum doesn't change the reality of the situation.


----------



## jgbrowning (Oct 27, 2006)

djdurant said:
			
		

> As a customer this rocks! One store front, one point of purchase, and consolidated catalog.




I don't think customers are going to be pleased by increased prices on many of the products that are the direct result of James and Steve conducting the merger in the manner they are presenting. There are positive results of this merger for the customers, but there are also negative ones. Saying "shut up or get out" isn't productive nor polite and both James and Steve know that.



> I've operated in a fluid business environment where decisions outside my control had major impact in how I operated. What I did to stay profitable was to adapt, overcome, and realize sometimes I had to change how I operated to take advantage of new situations. Change happens. Complaining, whining, and coming off as less than professional in a public forum doesn't change the reality of the situation.




If you think I'm coming off as less than professional, I'm sorry. I'm not behaving poorly. I personally know James, Steve, Gareth (we hit it of very well at GTS), Phil, and John and my points are germane to the situation. They are merely pointing out those who are fiscally gaining from the merger and those who are funding much of that gain at their loss.

I'm also providing a solution that would make the new site's relationship with their publishers less acrimonious and adversarial by suggesting a weighted royalty fee and postulating a slight increase in fees to cover the additional benefits of the site. This is constructive criticism and is considered professional.

I was professional when I railed into Steve concerning his use of exclusivity and DRM and pointing out it's flaws and hinderances both for the publishers and the customers and I'm being professional now by pointing out the flaws and hinderances with this merger to both his customers and his publisher customers. My actions concerning exclusivity and DRM, because they were professional, didn't damage my and Steve's relationship. I signed up with his company as soon as he didn't require esclusivity and DRM. I probably didn't have much to do with his decision, but perhaps something I said made sense to him and he changed his opinion.

And as Steve and James are businessmen looking out for their business, I'd like to think they are at least mulling over my ideas, because they may be better ones than the ones they thought of. They may not be, but to not say them at all would definitely serve no purpose.

joe b.


----------



## Urizen (Oct 27, 2006)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> No, he didn't.  He said "we publishers", implying that he was speaking as a publisher. When in fact, he's an employee of RPGNow as well as a publisher.
> 
> This is important because you have him in direct conflict with another actual publisher, who doesn't seem nearly as happy.
> 
> Which one is more credible? I'm not saying that him working for RPGNow makes him a "shill", to use his word, but he should have identified himself as such before commenting on a thread like this, IMHO.




I'm not trying to  put anyone in direct conflict with anyone else.

I think both publishers have credibility.  The only real difference here is that one person doesn't have major issues, and another does.

Do both issues have merit? Of course they do. But you seemed to imply Gareth was playing the role of a Shill (to use your word)  because he handles customer service for rpgnow.

Please. Gareth is a Publisher - a full time publisher mind you -  So how does his situation differ from any other publisher on DTRPG or RPGNOW?

Why should Gareth identify himself?  He's well known.  It's not like Adamant is small potatoes. To the best of my knowledge he doesn't hide the fact that he does customer service for  rpgnow.



			
				trancejeremy said:
			
		

> Or maybe not.  If I were a conspiracy theorist, I could speculate that this is simply a plot by White Wolf (the owners of DTRPG, or rather, the same person owns both) to drive out the competition by making it unprofitable for the little guys to compete...




Well I think that there is entirely too much conspiracy theory going on about this issue, but hey, I'm just a small publisher trying to get by and learn this business. 

Maybe you're right about the whole thing.


----------



## Khuxan (Oct 27, 2006)

Sorry, what are 'weighted' royalty fees?

It seems to me the people who are suffering most from this is Dreamscarred Press, who signed up for all three vendors and are now gaining access to only one. But few publishers seem very happy with the change. Even if a monopoly can provide short-term cuts in prices, greater market saturation, and so on, it is very easily abusable.


----------



## jgbrowning (Oct 27, 2006)

Khuxan said:
			
		

> Sorry, what are 'weighted' royalty fees?




It's something that I think would be a good idea. A weighted royalty would determine the amount of vendor fees I'm paying over all the sites currently. That number could remain constant during the merger—there's no need for an increase, nor a decrease.

I'm paying 25% at one site and 35% at other. However the higher fee site only accounts for roughly 22% of my total sales volume. If I add everyone together and to do some math I'm really paying a (roughly) 27% vendor's fee to the site that sells my product per sale, regardless of what site sold it.

I'd like to be charged a 27% vendor fee when the merger occurs. I'd be fine to pay a few points more (up to 2-3 or so) out of good faith that the new site is actually going to grow at a faster proprotional speed than the old sites did while independant.

If a weighted fee happened, I wouldn't raise my PDF prices, I'd ride it out, trust in Steve and James to deliver their promised increase in sales and move on.

I'm not given that option. I'm going to have to accept a 35% royalty rate on all my sales. I am not happy with that, and don't think it is beneficial to the publisher or the customers who buy PDF. It's only beneficial to the site owners. I'd like them to realize that we're business parters and that instead of it being an opportunity to move money from my pocket to theirs, they could view this as an opportunity to increase the money in all of our pockets by continuing the historical growth trends of both rpgnow.com and DTRPG and only increase my fees proportionate to the amount of additional benefits thay are bringing to the equation as opposed to the additional power they're bringing by owning 90% of the PDF market.

joe b.


----------



## Roudi (Oct 27, 2006)

Khuxan said:
			
		

> But few publishers seem very happy with the change.



You're seeing the result of a common ENWorld phenomenon, the "vocal minority."

Quite a few publishers are happy with the merger, some are even excited by the opportunities it provides.  Many have voiced their approval on RPGNow's private publisher forum, which is where any debates on this matter really should have stayed.


As for Mr. Browning: some publisher's prices may increase.  Some may not (they may chose simply to "eat the loss" of the increased rate).  Explaining to people a "price increase" which may or may not happen on a per publisher basis is really bad form.

Also, when you joined RPGNow, you signed an agreement.  I seem to recall (although I may possibly be mistaken) that certain terms of that agreement, including royalty rates, were subject to change with 30 days notice.  Well, if that is a part of the agreement, then RPGNow and DTRPG has remained true to that agreement.  You consented to this possibility when you became an RPGNow publisher.

On a personal note, I have a very hard time sympathizing with your "loss" when considering your overall annual profit (which is more than I have ever made annually, in any job).  If the loss of $82 a month truly puts you in financial jeopardy, then I do sympathize, as this is a situation I know all too well.  But if your only issue is a 9% loss of income, of a five-figure annual income, then I feel no pity.  

Business changes.  Markets change, trends rise and fall, obstacles emerge, and opportunities open.  XRP has demonstrated its ability to adapt and succeed... just look at your recent entry into the OSRIC system.  The new merged site is a change in the way you do business, nothing more.

I apologize if any unprofessional remarks above are found to be offensive.  I regret the offence, but not the telling; they needed to be said.


----------



## Baumi (Oct 27, 2006)

As a customer, I am very happy about merging the sites ... this means I don't have to look at different sites and therefore will check for new products more often, which also means that I will not miss an interesting product as easily as before.

By the way ... will the old exclusive products also be cross-listet and will the reviews also be merged (that would be fantastic)?


----------



## Twin Rose (Oct 27, 2006)

Very few publishers, even those listed on more than one site, always did their links to one PDF site and not included one to each... Or even a link to the one which they paid the lowest royalty at.  By the simple nature of them doing this, they essentially cast their vote of, "I want to make all my sales on one site, regardless of how much more I pay." 

Obviously, it's not that simple, but it does basically boil down to that.  This seemed to be what most publishers wanted, and they were given plenty of opportunities to try and make more money per sale, but really didn't capitalize on it.  My products were selling for 0% comission on ENGS, obviously, and now I'm going to be paying 35% comission... Campaign Suite Extended sells for $34.95 a pop, and was in the top 10 products at ENGS.  I'm definately going to be feeling this from that stand point.  

But, this will give me lots of time to work on CS2, which is going to more than make up for it, I'm sure   I certainly was spending a lot more time on ENGS that was a detriment to my business, so I think it'll be good in the long run.  I'm also doing what I can to make sure the new site(s) are a success.


----------



## jgbrowning (Oct 27, 2006)

> As for Mr. Browning: some publisher's prices may increase.  Some may not (they may chose simply to "eat the loss" of the increased rate).  Explaining to people a "price increase" which may or may not happen on a per publisher basis is really bad form.




It's not may or may not happen. It's a "which publishers will" situation. Prices for rpg PDFs will be higher after the merger than they were before.

Seriously. I'm being professional, I'm not acting badly, I'm not flinging poo-poo. Everyone please stop accusing me of such simply because I'm pointing out the obvious and immediate economic results of the proposed new site.

Many of the vendors who account for roughly 80% of the sales at rpgnow.com will make less the months after the merger than the months before. In justification for this loss of revenue, we're told that we'll make more because of volume. Where this new volume is going to come from hasn't yet been explained especially considering that it must be above and beyond what was already occuring at the old sites to make up the difference in vendor fees. We're told that there will be more marketing/advertising. We haven't been told where, or how much. Also, many of us at rpgnow.com will remember that James has said to us that he doesn't believe hard-copy advertising provided much if any real noticable return for PDF products and considered in not really worth his time and money. However, our fee increase is supposed to help do more of that because it is apparantly now considered worthy of investment. I'd like to know what made James change his mind.

The only real thing I was told is that my fees are increasing.



> Also, when you joined RPGNow, you signed an agreement.  I seem to recall (although I may possibly be mistaken) that certain terms of that agreement, including royalty rates, were subject to change with 30 days notice.  Well, if that is a part of the agreement, then RPGNow and DTRPG has remained true to that agreement.  You consented to this possibility when you became an RPGNow publisher.




Indeed! Again saying "shut up or leave" isn't constructive nor polite. Also by signing that contract I have entered *a partership* and I'd like to let my parters know that I'd rather they not decide to take 10% from me and give it to themselves while also telling my customers that pricing is decided by me, not them. And I'm certainly going to inform them of it. And I'm going to inform my customers (you know, those people who are also my parter's customers as well) why I'm going to raise my prices. And I'm going to inform the general PDF purchasing public as to why they might notice any price increases by several companies as well.

Why? Because any price increases due to this merger are unecessary. Any vendor fee increases are also unecessary.



> On a personal note, I have a very hard time sympathizing with your "loss" when considering your overall annual profit (which is more than I have ever made annually, in any job).  If the loss of $82 a month truly puts you in financial jeopardy, then I do sympathize, as this is a situation I know all too well.  But if your only issue is a 9% loss of income, of a five-figure annual income, then I feel no pity.




Roughly 80% of my income comes from rpgs sales. I make roughly 20k a year in profits. That's the biz. I'm a small fry in rpgville, but a medium fry in PDFville.



> Business changes.  Markets change, trends rise and fall, obstacles emerge, and opportunities open.  XRP has demonstrated its ability to adapt and succeed... just look at your recent entry into the OSRIC system.  The new merged site is a change in the way you do business, nothing more.




I agree with most of that, but the business didn't change, the market didn't change, trends haven't fallen, yet many of us who are actually creating rpg products are now going to make less. If it was a changing business, a changing market, or falling trends I wouldn't complain (well I'd complain some) but I'd adapt and move on, trying to find something better. And those of us who don't want to make less will have to charge our customers more. I'd rather not do that because of the reasons put forth.

However, I'm viewing this obstacle as an opportunity. I will come out better than I went going it. But that's not because of any help provided by my business parter: it's going to be despite their "assistance" in our relationship. I don't like that. I think they should know and I think everyone else who cares to read my posts should as well. If someone's not really interested in what I have to say, they don't have to read my posts.

This merger should have been a joyous affair for *all* parties involved. It should have meant I'll make more, they'll make more, and customers get an easier shopping source with no changes in existing prices. I shouldn't have lost the "Awesome! This is going to be great for everyone!" vibe I had right when I started reading the announcement before I got to the part where I'm going to be making less.

joe b.


----------



## Wolv0rine (Oct 27, 2006)

I see a lot of people jumping up and down screaming "Yay, it's so much easier for Me now!", and I see a few very professional people giving well thought out commentary on how this isn't the bright, shining salvation it's being advertised as.

Me, all *I* see is a monopoly.  And monopolies are always bad, no exceptions.  Regardless of what they may promise you, regardless of what bones they might throw you, monopolies are in a position to bend you over as far, and as often, as they feel like.  And it's pretty rare when they don't.

I'm not a publisher, I'm just an artist who occasionaly writes.  But this turn of events just makes me wish someone had the means, know-how, and clout to introduce a new competetor for this newly-merged entity.  Not because I harbor any specific ill-will to those involved, but because monopolies need to be challenged by competition that provides viable alternatives to both buyer and seller.


----------



## Cheiromancer (Oct 27, 2006)

How do I get access to the credit balance I had with the ENGS?


----------



## Morrus (Oct 27, 2006)

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> How do I get access to the credit balance I had with the ENGS?




You account page is still there - just go there and withdraw it.  

http://shop.enworld.org/account.php?


----------



## JoeGKushner (Oct 27, 2006)

Wolv0rine said:
			
		

> I see a lot of people jumping up and down screaming "Yay, it's so much easier for Me now!", and I see a few very professional people giving well thought out commentary on how this isn't the bright, shining salvation it's being advertised as.
> 
> Me, all *I* see is a monopoly.  And monopolies are always bad, no exceptions.  Regardless of what they may promise you, regardless of what bones they might throw you, monopolies are in a position to bend you over as far, and as often, as they feel like.  And it's pretty rare when they don't.
> 
> I'm not a publisher, I'm just an artist who occasionaly writes.  But this turn of events just makes me wish someone had the means, know-how, and clout to introduce a new competetor for this newly-merged entity.  Not because I harbor any specific ill-will to those involved, but because monopolies need to be challenged by competition that provides viable alternatives to both buyer and seller.




What a bout Piazo and e-23 from SJG?


----------



## Cheiromancer (Oct 27, 2006)

Morrus said:
			
		

> You account page is still there - just go there and withdraw it.
> 
> http://shop.enworld.org/account.php?




No, I mean how do I use it to buy stuff.  When I click on something it asks me for my RPGNow email address and password, and indicates I have a $0.40 credit.  Whereas I have more than $70 in the ENGS.  If I withdraw it I'm pretty sure I'll lose on the transaction fee, which I don't want.  I paid the transaction few to put money into the account- I don't want to pay it again to take it out.


----------



## Wolv0rine (Oct 27, 2006)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> What a bout Piazo and e-23 from SJG?



Can't say I'm familiar with them, although I noticed both mentioned on a similar thread on TheRPGSite, and the people who responded to the names seemed to indicate that neither have the traffic (if not anything else) to really be a viable alternative.  But that _is_ heresay.


----------



## Bacris (Oct 27, 2006)

I think what's likely going to be seen is an influx in publisher-owned storefronts becoming their preferred retail outlets with the new OBS outlet being a secondary outlet.  For some, this may not be viable (hosting & payment processing fees, plus the other overhead associated), for others, there have already been posts where publishers will release to their own storefront first at "normal" rates and then release to OBS at a higher rate later to compensate for the increased commission rate.

I can't say definitively which option Dreamscarred Press will take at this time, as that is not a decision for me to make alone, but I can say how this plays out will definitely influence our decision.  We want to take care of our customers, but if we end up not making any money or, worse, losing money, then it's not a viable option.

Or maybe we'll see an influx in new sites like E-23 and ENWorld's GameStore that offer lower rates...  although that would likely end up with quite a few businesses closing up shop due to the nature of start-up businesses


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Oct 27, 2006)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> What a bout Piazo and e-23 from SJG?



Their combined share of the PDF market is inconsequential--both are barely a footnote in the overall sales of typical PDF publishers with the affected primary two stores easily accounting for the majority of a typical PDF publisher's sales (to say nothing of the overall PDF market.)

I also feel that I must state that Joe is indeed voicing legitimate concerns in a professional manner on a section of the messageboard set aside for people such as himself: publishers. The fact that he isn't looking at the situation from the same perspective as some others doesn't make him unprofessional, nor does his voicing of his opinions and concerns for his business. Classifying Joe's comments as "whining" is wholly inappropriate and inapplicable--indeed, looking over Joe's posts, I don't see anything that could accurately classfiy his comments as such.

I may not agree with everything Joe is saying, but some I do. I *definately* agree with him in stating he's being nothing but professional in how he's presenting those concerns, however, especially those who think he's out of line for being worried about his business' bottom line, need to take a step back and consider how their own behavior and words make them appear.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 27, 2006)

There's absolutely nothing wrong with Joe voicing his concerns.  That's the whole purpose of this thread - for publishers to discuss (there's a matching thread in general for fans).

However, I'm optimistic that his bottom line won't be affected in the way he thinks it is.  Obviously, I have no way of knowing, but my belief is that RPGNow, DTRPG and ENGS publishers will see stronger overall sales.  And I believe this makes is easier for OBS to grow the market more successfully.

Only time will tell.  Joe's concerns are valid; I hope things don't work out like that.  ENP stands to lose even more (the majoroty of ENP sales were at ENGS at 0% commission, so we're losing a full 30% of our gross revenue in one fell swoop), but I'm confident that overall sales - at least in the long term - will more than compensate.


----------



## Prest0 (Oct 27, 2006)

Without making any sort of value judgement on the new store, I will point out that RPG e-publishers have been pampered compared to the greater book market. Spend an hour doing some research with online e-book retailers of fiction and technical books and you'll see them taking commissions of 40-60%. Personally I think that's outrageous, but that's market reality.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Oct 27, 2006)

Prest0 said:
			
		

> Without making any sort of value judgement on the new store, I will point out that RPG e-publishers have been pampered compared to the greater book market. Spend an hour doing some research with online e-book retailers of fiction and technical books and you'll see them taking commissions of 40-60%. Personally I think that's outrageous, but that's market reality.



You'll likely find there's also a larger market there to account for it. It's not a matter of rpg e-publishres being spoiled--if any of the vendors of rpg PDFs charged that much the market would simply collapse entirely because it's not big enough for e-publishers to operate under that model. A larger market compensates for that effect by moving a volume our market can't (yet?) account for (although I agree that the rates you provide are still horrific.)


----------



## Henry (Oct 27, 2006)

Wolv0rine said:
			
		

> Can't say I'm familiar with them, although I noticed both mentioned on a similar thread on TheRPGSite, and the people who responded to the names seemed to indicate that neither have the traffic (if not anything else) to really be a viable alternative.  But that _is_ heresay.




Warehouse 23 is definitely viable, but they don't do as much d20 business as RPGNow, DTRPG, and ENGS.

Regarding Monopolies: not only are there other PDF retailers, but people usually don't get as much up in arms over a monopoly on a luxury item. 

Me, I see this as a good thing in some ways -- so far it's worked out very well for Russ and ENWorld, and that's what I mainly care about -- but I can also sympathize with Joe's concerns about the bind it's put some publishers in. Me, I have no conflicts of conscience any longer with having to direct people to RPGNow for an awesome product that wasn't being sold on ENGS.


----------



## Yair (Oct 27, 2006)

Wolv0rine said:
			
		

> Me, all *I* see is a monopoly.  And monopolies are always bad, no exceptions.  Regardless of what they may promise you, regardless of what bones they might throw you, monopolies are in a position to bend you over as far, and as often, as they feel like.  And it's pretty rare when they don't.



QFT



			
				Bacris said:
			
		

> I think what's likely going to be seen is an influx in publisher-owned storefronts becoming their preferred retail outlets with the new OBS outlet being a secondary outlet.  For some, this may not be viable (hosting & payment processing fees, plus the other overhead associated), for others, there have already been posts where publishers will release to their own storefront first at "normal" rates and then release to OBS at a higher rate later to compensate for the increased commission rate.



I am not familiar with any case where a publisher sold a product *at a lower price* on their own storefront than at some other online provider. (I'd love to proven wrong.) There are definitely benefits to a site like the OBS (one account, less fear of credit card theft or unprofessional support, the ability to purchase from several retailers at the same time, the ability to make several small purchases...) that I'd be willing to pay more for. If the costs the site takes would be rolled onto the product's price, this argument would be very different.

For myself, I've so far largely purchased from RPGNow when given the option, as I liked them the most. From now on, I'd be purchasing through e23, Paizo, or the publisher's site when possible. I don't like the OBS, smells too much like other "luxury" monopolies such as microsoft.
Not that I buy many PDFs nowadays.


----------



## Cergorach (Oct 27, 2006)

So i take it that pdf publishers would be interested in an e-tailer that would sell their wares at a significantly lower commision?


----------



## Henry (Oct 27, 2006)

Yair said:
			
		

> I am not familiar with any case where a publisher sold a product *at a lower price* on their own storefront than at some other online provider. (I'd love to proven wrong.)




There's also the fact that trying to get people driven to your own personal site unless you are a big-name-recognition publisher is harder than getting the camel through the eye of the proverbial needle. If I started a site, people wouldn't even take the time to register for it, much less go out of their way to buy anything from it. That's an option most publishers couldn't make fly, even if they wanted to. Heck, one of the big drives to ENGS at its inception is that most of its customer base didn't need to register for anything -- they already had an account because of ENWorld!


----------



## JohnNephew (Oct 27, 2006)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> On a side note, you, and others including myself are being quoted here:
> http://enworld.rpgnow.com/aboutus.html
> 
> 
> ...




Yeah, I saw that.  No doubt they thought it was legitimate to substitute "OBS" for "RPGNow," since it's a successor entity; but it was going to look a bit awkward with OBS not actually offering any Atlas titles.

-John Nephew
President, Atlas Games


----------



## philreed (Oct 27, 2006)

e23.rpgnow.com


----------



## GMSkarka (Oct 27, 2006)

One thing that nobody has really talked about in this discussion is that RPGnet is also getting an affiliate store in this process -- RPGnet is one of the two largest sites (along with ENWorld), and they have not had PDF sales before.    There is some cross-traffic between RPGNet and ENWorld, but there are also "site loyalists" who stick with one community.

The opening of a new affiliate store at the other major RPG forum represents direct access to more customers.   It is my firm belief that increased sales will result from that.

Again, my two cents as a publisher.


----------



## HinterWelt (Oct 27, 2006)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> One thing that nobody has really talked about in this discussion is that RPGnet is also getting an affiliate store in this process -- RPGnet is one of the two largest sites (along with ENWorld), and they have not had PDF sales before.    There is some cross-traffic between RPGNet and ENWorld, but there are also "site loyalists" who stick with one community.
> 
> The opening of a new affiliate store at the other major RPG forum represents direct access to more customers.   It is my firm belief that increased sales will result from that.
> 
> Again, my two cents as a publisher.



I thought they had sales through a deal with DTRPG?

Bill


----------



## JohnNephew (Oct 27, 2006)

In the constructive ideas department...

What I wish was that publishers set a wholesale price for their PDFs, and the PDF outlets who sold their products gave them that price per sale.  Then the outlets could include whatever markup they thought the market would bear, either to compete with other sites on the basis of price or by justifying a higher price through offering convenience, superior services and features, etc.  Just like the regular retail world.  This would encourage competition and benefit the end consumer, unlike the current situation which both puts the squeeze on the publisher, and then turn and blames the publisher for being responsible for the price the consumer pays.

As a variation, publishers could set wholesale price tiers based on volume or other factors, just as they do in the offline world.  For example, a publisher could offer all their PDF vendors a 5% discount any month that gross revenue due to the publisher exceeds $1000 (or some other number, based on typical volume).  Or a publisher could offer different wholesale rates based on the frequency of accounting and payments (i.e., a PDF vendor with the systems and willingness to process payments weekly might get a better price than the PDF vendor who only did it monthly or quarterly -- similar to the "rapid payment discounts" that many publishers offer print distributors who pay faster than the standard net 30 terms).

In these ways a large and successful PDF vendor could still get a bigger slice of the pie, but it would be based on concrete performance measures that actually benefit the publisher, rather than ambiguous and unenforceable promises to grow the market.  And other PDF vendors could be given specific targets to reach in order to get the same terms as the biggest.

-John Nephew
President, Atlas Games


----------



## Bacris (Oct 27, 2006)

Yair said:
			
		

> I am not familiar with any case where a publisher sold a product *at a lower price* on their own storefront than at some other online provider. (I'd love to proven wrong.)




I'll see if I can find the post again... but one publisher publically stated that he would be posting PDFs at his site initially and, after a set amount of time, would release it to the e-retailers and then increase the price (both at his site and at the e-retailers).


----------



## jgbrowning (Oct 27, 2006)

Morrus said:
			
		

> However, I'm optimistic that his bottom line won't be affected in the way he thinks it is.




Unless you can provide me a reason as to why I'll suddenly generate around 15% more sales when the switch is flipped to start up the old site, I don't know why you're optomistic.

When the switch is flipped, I'm losing 10%, my vendor is going to gain my loss. And that's going to happen everyday, for every sale, until the site growth generates 15% above and beyond what DTRPG and rpgnow.com was already growing.

So, please explain where that's a mistatement if you think my bottem line won't be affected in such a manner.



> Obviously, I have no way of knowing, but my belief is that RPGNow, DTRPG and ENGS publishers will see stronger overall sales.  And I believe this makes is easier for OBS to grow the market more successfully.




One of my questions that hasn't yet been answered is how? Seriously Morrus, you've been doing this for a long time as well. Where are those new sales going to come from? The new site will have roughly 90% of the market already. I'm not going to gain access to any new market share: I was already on everysite involved. I ran my numbers and determined that the 5% better take I'd make by going exclusive with the new site would result in the same loss of revenue since I'd also lose all the revenue at e23 and Paizo.

There are no big publishers left to sign on excepting Steve Jackson (won't happen, e23, edit: maybe I'm wrong ) and Palladium. Palladium signing on would be great, for themselves, for the new site and for the potential new customers that would be then drawn to the site and to the PDF concept in general. But I'm far from optimistic about Palladium signing. I'd only rate is a no, as opposed to a hell no. They're the only bigger rpg company I know of not doing some sort of PDF sales already.

So I'm back to wondering where these new customers are going to come from? But again, it's not just having the new site reach 15% new rpg pdf buying customers in order for me to make the same amount as I was making before, the new site has to reach 15% new customers *on top of* what the old independant sites were reaching already *when they were competing against each other for business*. If DTRPG, rpgnow.com and ENGamestore had a historic growth rate of 15% a year, the new site has to make a 30% growth the first year for me to see my profit remain the same. But that would only mean my profit remained the same for the very last month of that 30% growth, while the site's profits went up the instant it upped our rates and continued to proportionally increase with every 1% of additional new rpg pdf customers growth: unlike my increase which would result only in a reduction of a loss.

I think everyone can understand why I'm discouraged. I'm facing the grim fact that a solid and healthy 15% growth rate in the PDF purchasing market next year isn't going to result in any increased revenue for me. All the profit from a 15% market growth is going into the the new site's coffers because they're taking it from me up front and telling me "You'll make it up."

Can I switch that arraingment if they think its so damn peachy? Can I get a 5% reduction in my fees and tell them they're going to make so much more money based upon "growing the market"? I mean seriously, a lesser cut of a greater market is still a bigger pie piece, right?

Yeah. 

I'm roughly 40% up this year in PDF sales. I'd be interested in how much of that increase is the result of sitewide revenue growth at the sites that are merging vrs. how much is the result of only my hard work. If new customer growth was 20% in the past 12 months, I would account for 20% of the growth of my PDF sales. Such a situation would be a perfect example of how the sites benefit publishers and how publisher's benefit the sites. However, I'd be surprised to find a 20% growth rate in PDF cutomers last year based upon what information I can glean from the sources available to me.

So to jump back to my point, where are those new sales going to come from? Even if I'm wrong and there was a 20% growth in new rpg pdf customers last year, if the same happens next year, I'm really only looking at a 5% growth rate. My partner isn't however. On my sales, if I grow my gross revenue by 20% next year, my parter's are actually going to see a 68% growth in their profitability.

For every $100 dollars I increase my revenue (gross), they used to see a $25 income for them. Now for every $100 dollars they'll see $35. And making more money doesn't solve that problem because they'll still going to get $35 out of every $100 I increase my gross revenue. They're giving me a hole to dig out of by increasing my fees and by increasing my fees they've made it harder to dig out of that hole at the same time.



			
				Prest0 said:
			
		

> Without making any sort of value judgement on the new store, I will point out that RPG e-publishers have been pampered compared to the greater book market. Spend an hour doing some research with online e-book retailers of fiction and technical books and you'll see them taking commissions of 40-60%. Personally I think that's outrageous, but that's market reality.




I'm in that market as well. PDF publishers haven't been pampered. The competition between PDF publishers is fierce, but in general, quite friendly. Compare average sales numbers for a new product from two years ago with one now: you'll find they're down across the board. A PDF released now won't make as much money in two years as the same PDF released two years ago. We're already seeing the downward trend as individual publishers and now we're seeing fee increases as well.

joe b.


----------



## Yair (Oct 27, 2006)

philreed said:
			
		

> e23.rpgnow.com



Hmm, does that mean that e23 has joined the dark side OBS?

JohnNephew: As I understand it, the argument against your model is that comparison buying through different store fronts is too easy online, so the prices will in fact be set to those of the lowest competitor. I admit that does sound right to me - do you think the selling sites could compete in such a market while providing quality service and not curtailing the growth of the PDF market?


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Oct 27, 2006)

I don't like.

Not one bit.

Everyone is pointing at increased traffic.

Of course there will be. DriveThru will be getting RPGNow and ENGame customers in addition to their previous ones.

That's increased traffic for DTRPG.

Anyone want to tell me what I'm getting out of being charged this extra?

Since, as a writer, I'll be taking a pay cut, tell ME what is going to be so special about all this.

I notice people from RPGNow and ENGame are happy, well of course they are.  KA-CHING!

Still, the fact remains...

What will we be getting for the extra chunk of change? Increased advertising? Assistance to noobs about PDF construction? Continued Pick N Mix? Handjobs from midgets?

Seeing as DTRPG is a White Wolf spinoff, I'm having a hard time believing this is all to benifit the consumers and us publishers. White Wolf hasn't been exactly the foremost in great decisions lately.

Top it off with DTRPG's bad name (Where's my $10, BTW?) from DRM and the fact that a lot of people (myself included) got jacked at one point by them, this also seems as a perfect way for DTRPG to clean up their name.

People are pointing at small, tiny, almost unknown PDF sale points to assure everyone that this merger isn't constructing a monopoly.

So, our choices are:

DTRPG, with all their demands, bad rep, and deeper cut, where there's bonafide, well documented traffic from both themselves and the two companies they merged with.

OR

Tiny PDF Shop dot Com, which had 20% or less of the traffic.

Wow.



Personally, I don't like it, not one bit.

Some people have pointed out standard publishing percentages, and then stated: See, it's not that bad.

Well, writers get advances, bigger paychecks, and guarenteed sales. Books are bought in advance and/or in lots of hundreds or thousands. SUre, the writers only get 1-5%, but they still get a hell of a lot more money for that novel.

Can DTRPG guarentee coast to coast saturation, placement in Barnes & Noble and other books stores? Can they gaurentee distribution in over 10,000 locations?

What exactly are we GETTING for our 30-40% knock right off the top?

What services are we PURCHASING?


----------



## JohnNephew (Oct 27, 2006)

Yair said:
			
		

> JohnNephew: As I understand it, the argument against your model is that comparison buying through different store fronts is too easy online, so the prices will in fact be set to those of the lowest competitor.




By the same argument, all the online sales of printed games should be through the biggest discounters, but the full-price sales we get every month from Warehouse 23 (which handles all of our web sales) suggests it isn't so.  Price is a factor, but there are elements of convenience, service, etc.  A PDF site that offered superior customer service, one-stop shopping, loyalty programs and incentives, bundles and specials that they could do according to their own strategic plans, etc., could distinguish itself from another site that was cutting everything to the bone to try and up their sales volume (and as a result might not be able to respond to customer service issues in a timely manner, for example).  I don't know where the magic mark-up level would be, but I'd rather have it decided by competition in the market rather than by PDF sites just taking more from the publishers' pockets because they can.



			
				Yair said:
			
		

> I admit that does sound right to me - do you think the selling sites could compete in such a market while providing quality service and not curtailing the growth of the PDF market?




Yes.

Also, the big gorilla with the most market share, working hard to attract brand new customers, will get a lot of customers at whatever price they charge simply because most customers won't even realize there are alternatives.  Plus, they'll distinguish themselves with the exclusive agreements they have with many vendors, which they could still have under a different pricing regime (that would beef up their "convenience" factor).


----------



## HinterWelt (Oct 27, 2006)

JohnNephew said:
			
		

> In the constructive ideas department...
> 
> What I wish was that publishers set a wholesale price for their PDFs, and the PDF outlets who sold their products gave them that price per sale.  Then the outlets could include whatever markup they thought the market would bear, either to compete with other sites on the basis of price or by justifying a higher price through offering convenience, superior services and features, etc.  Just like the regular retail world.  This would encourage competition and benefit the end consumer, unlike the current situation which both puts the squeeze on the publisher, and then turn and blames the publisher for being responsible for the price the consumer pays.
> 
> ...



John,
Interesting points. Net pricing, when I owned my B&M retail stores was so problmatic though. A true pain. Do you think with the volume we see, just from publishers like Ronin Arts, that those problems would be compounded? Essentially, the store front would have to price these out. Now, they could just take the net price and add an across the board %.

That said, I think it is a great idea. I often wonder if net pricing will make it (in force) into the print industry. I think it might solve a lot of problems. For the PDF industry, it is early on and hopefully people will listen to this idea. It has a great deal of merit.

Bill


----------



## Morrus (Oct 27, 2006)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> Unless you can provide me a reason as to why I'll suddenly generate around 15% more sales when the switch is flipped to start up the old site, I don't know why you're optomistic.
> 
> When the switch is flipped, I'm losing 10%, my vendor is going to gain my loss. And that's going to happen everyday, for every sale, until the site growth generates 15% above and beyond what DTRPG and rpgnow.com was already growing.
> 
> So, please explain where that's a mistatement if you think my bottem line won't be affected in such a manner.




Remember, I'm not predicting the future, just offering an opinion.  But here's what I think:

You may well be at all three sites.  However, many, many, many publishers are not.  I'm gonna pick a completely random example here - say Mongoose is only at DTRPG.  Now DTRPG's "Mongoose" customers are seeing a whole lot more product in front of them.  That will increase overall sales from Mongoose customers as they are exposed to products and customers they weren't before - and expand their PDF shopping habits.

That effect is repeated with every publisher who is not already on all three sites.  

I'm not saying it magically creates new customers; I'm saying that the combined customer base of all three stores will have more choice and variety.  And these things lead to more purchasing.

I'm not promising that you're wrong, Joe.  I really _hope_ you're wrong (remember, ENP was selling at 0% commission and stands to lose even more if you're right!).  I believe it will work out to all of our advantage.


----------



## seasong (Oct 27, 2006)

We have not been bought (or merged) with RPGNow, DriveThruRPG, or OBS. We're looking into what happened.

Thomas Weigel
e23 Manager
http://e23.sjgames.com/


----------



## JohnNephew (Oct 27, 2006)

HinterWelt said:
			
		

> John,
> Interesting points. Net pricing, when I owned my B&M retail stores was so problmatic though. A true pain. Do you think with the volume we see, just from publishers like Ronin Arts, that those problems would be compounded? Essentially, the store front would have to price these out. Now, they could just take the net price and add an across the board %.




I think it would work particularly well for digital sales.  After all, you don't have to go applying price stickers to physical books.  

One approach is the across-the-board markup.  That's the simplest.

Some PDF vendors could decide to invest in software development that would give them a competitive edge, by polling current prices on their competitors' sites and offering a price matching, or beating it, or putting together bundles that would effectively price match if the customer is willing to buy something more as well.  There are a lot of innovative possibilities here -- innovations that could benefit both consumers and publishers -- if there were competitive pressure.

Even without such sophisticated software, vendors would be given liberty to put together deals according to their own strategy -- having a "10% off everything" promotional day, if they wanted, or offering bundles (get a second item at the wholesale price if you pay regular price for the first, etc.), or whatever.


----------



## GMSkarka (Oct 27, 2006)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> So, our choices are:
> 
> DTRPG, with all their demands, bad rep, and deeper cut, where there's bonafide, well documented traffic from both themselves and the two companies they merged with.
> 
> ...




I'll repeat this, since it's getting missed in all this chicken-little-ing:   

This is NOT DTRPG taking over RPGNow.    This is a new company, owned in a 50/50 partnership between James and PSI (the owners of DTRPG), now owning both sites.

Let me do the math for you:   On one side of the 50/50 split, you have James Mathe, who owned Minion Development, which ran RPGNow.   On the other side of the 50/50 split, you have *multiple* shareholders in PSI, who ran DTRPG.  

James isn't going anywhere.   This is not a DTRPG takeover.    

The new company is charging the same rates as DTRPG, but most of the functionality will be RPGNow's model, as I understand it.

Take a deep breath.   Calm down.     It's a merger.   It's not armageddon.    Yes, some publishers will be paying more for their sales.   I'm one of them.   But I'll be blunt:  If a *maximum* of a 10% increase is so much that the publisher feels the need to raise prices, then, simply put, they had priced their product too low to start with.

Feel free to discount my opinion, since I handle customer service emails for RPGNow, which, for some, makes me suspect.


----------



## jgbrowning (Oct 27, 2006)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> One thing that nobody has really talked about in this discussion is that RPGnet is also getting an affiliate store in this process -- RPGnet is one of the two largest sites (along with ENWorld), and they have not had PDF sales before.    There is some cross-traffic between RPGNet and ENWorld, but there are also "site loyalists" who stick with one community.
> 
> The opening of a new affiliate store at the other major RPG forum represents direct access to more customers.   It is my firm belief that increased sales will result from that.
> 
> Again, my two cents as a publisher.




RPGnet is *already linking* to DTRPG.

joe b.


----------



## Alzrius (Oct 27, 2006)

seasong said:
			
		

> We have not been bought (or merged) with RPGNow, DriveThruRPG, or OBS. We're looking into what happened.




Well, that last sentence certainly sounded ominous.


----------



## Henry (Oct 27, 2006)

EDIT POST: I agree with Mark CMG.


----------



## Mark CMG (Oct 27, 2006)

Probably best to avoid speculation.


----------



## tensen (Oct 27, 2006)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> If time is that tight, I'm sure he could also be writing new PDF's during that 15-20 process?




No he couldn't.  It wasn't 15-20 of upload time.  It is modifying graphics to fit a different upload format.  Different keywords being entered.  Different format for demos.  And other things that all added up to constiute the time.  The upload of the file itself was probably around a tenth of the time used.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 27, 2006)

Wolv0rine said:
			
		

> Me, all *I* see is a monopoly.  And monopolies are always bad, no exceptions.  Regardless of what they may promise you, regardless of what bones they might throw you, monopolies are in a position to bend you over as far, and as often, as they feel like.  And it's pretty rare when they don't.



First off all, can we avoid the monpoly myth and stay on topic.  I'd love to get into larger topic you've touched on, but can't without breaking forum rules.  (Which, IMO, you have already done with the generalization)

That aside, THIS is not a monopoly.  The current store fronts are merging.  That doesn't constitute a monopoly.  Anyone else CAN start a new competitor any time they want to.  
Who gets to say that the owners of the sites should be denied their right to do with their property as they wish?

Beyond that, if they even start trying to "bend you over", a) you can walk away and b) the hypothetical more profits would immediately create interest in new competition.


The world is not ending.  The world does not even have the sniffles.


----------



## Henry (Oct 27, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> The world is not ending.  The world does not even have the sniffles.




It does, however, have vertigo from the speed at which this is moving.


----------



## Justin Bacon (Oct 27, 2006)

Morrus said:
			
		

> I'm not saying it magically creates new customers; I'm saying that the combined customer base of all three stores will have more choice and variety.  And these things lead to more purchasing.




So, let me see if I've got this straight. OBS thinks that:

(a) The merger will produce at least a 15% increase in sales.
(b) OBS doesn't want the publishers to benefit from that increase in sales, so they've jacked up the publishers' commissions so that OBS will be the only ones benefitting from the 15% increase in sales.

Hmm... I see why OBS thinks this is a great thing. I'm not sure why you think the publishers should be jumping for joy.

Or perhaps OBS' thinking is like this:

(a) As a combined company, we'll be able to consolidate our infrastructure and minimize our overhead as a percentage of revenues!
(b) So we'll need to charge the publishers even more to cover our reduced overhead costs!

Hmm... That doesn't even make sense.


----------



## HinterWelt (Oct 27, 2006)

JohnNephew said:
			
		

> I think it would work particularly well for digital sales.  After all, you don't have to go applying price stickers to physical books.
> 
> One approach is the across-the-board markup.  That's the simplest.
> 
> ...




I have written page scraping software and use some third party software that works well. It would be interesting to have the ability to scrape other sites for their catalog and compare prices. I am not a big fan of competing on price but it is a consideration.

I guess I was thinking along the lines of being able to "fire sale" all HinterWelt products;i.e. by company, product line or the like. Alternatively, you could put the breaks on rampant sellers by increasing margin and decreasing bandwidth usage. Or, for that matter, just general pricing controls based on genre for holidays; i.e. Horror on sale for Halloween.

The big difference, and I think this would be the stumbling block, is that promotion and sales responsibility would be more heavily shifted to the store front. To be sure, there is still the motivation for the publisher to get paid by promoting their own products but now the store front's profits would be tied to the sales and their margins. Who knows though, that could be a selling point since they would have more control over pricing and promotion.

For the record, I prefer this line of discussion much more than registering complaints. Not that those are not valid but I like finding solutions. 

Bill


----------



## Morrus (Oct 27, 2006)

Justin Bacon said:
			
		

> So, let me see if I've got this straight. OBS thinks that:
> 
> (a) The merger will produce at least a 15% increase in sales.
> (b) OBS doesn't want the publishers to benefit from that increase in sales, so they've jacked up the publishers' commissions so that OBS will be the only ones benefitting from the 15% increase in sales.
> ...




No, you haven't got this straight.  Please tone down the sarcasm.


----------



## Mark CMG (Oct 27, 2006)

HinterWelt said:
			
		

> For the record, I prefer this line of discussion much more than registering complaints. Not that those are not valid but I like finding solutions.





I'm sure a good number of wrinkles and solutions will be coming over the next five weeks as the rate increase looms larger.


----------



## HinterWelt (Oct 27, 2006)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> If a *maximum* of a 10% increase is so much that the publisher feels the need to raise prices, then, simply put, they had priced their product too low to start with.
> 
> Feel free to discount my opinion, since I handle customer service emails for RPGNow, which, for some, makes me suspect.




I disagree. If you are pricing your products correctly, certainly you have a profit margin figured in. However, it all depends on if you wish to give up part of that margin die to a rate increase. Increasing expenses are traditionally folded into the price of the product. To give up 10% of your profit margin (by an increase of your operational expenses) is a poor business choice.

Bill


----------



## Jdvn1 (Oct 27, 2006)

Roudi said:
			
		

> Many have voiced their approval on RPGNow's private publisher forum, which is where any debates on this matter really should have stayed.



In EN World, this is probably the right place for such a discussion. Regardless, I _very much_ appreciate Joe's bringing the issue to us, the consumers, and I believe his points are very valid from an economic standpoint.

Also, I prefer to have lower prices than to have a consolidated source of PDFs. It's insanely easy to visit different sites to find lower prices anyway. I previously supported ENGS PDFs in order to help EN World (and I love the Bookshelf feature), but if it now also helps OBS, I'm more likely to go to the publisher's individual sites.

Even if publishers were able to break even or earn more profit from raised traffic, OBS is still taking a much larger share of the profit than seems reasonable. OBS makes a larger profit just from the merger, while everyone else is left _hoping_ to keep what revenue they previously had.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Oct 27, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> First off all, can we avoid the monpoly myth and stay on topic.  I'd love to get into larger topic you've touched on, but can't without breaking forum rules.  (Which, IMO, you have already done with the generalization)



"Monopoly" is an economic term, not a political term. Is there another rule I'm missing?


			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> That aside, THIS is not a monopoly.  The current store fronts are merging.  That doesn't constitute a monopoly.  Anyone else CAN start a new competitor any time they want to.



A monopoly can constitute only 85% or 90% of the market. There's no hard-and-fast rule saying it has to be 100%. If it were a handful (2-25 or therebouts) of firms that combined for 50% to 90% of the market, then it'd be an oligopoly market.


			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> Who gets to say that the owners of the sites should be denied their right to do with their property as they wish?



Well, that's why, from a historical standpoint (I'm trying to keep politics out of this) the government has blocked mergers in the auto industry, in the telecommunications industry, in the software industry... all over the place. The government, according to economics, is supposed to prevent mergers in oligopolies in order to prevent one company from having too large of a market share and becoming a monopoly.

Whether such a merger should be blocked in this scenario is either a political argument or an economic argument, so I'll just avoid that. The PDF retail market, anyway, is a tiny market, so it's kind of a grey area.


----------



## tensen (Oct 27, 2006)

Wolv0rine said:
			
		

> Me, all *I* see is a monopoly.  And monopolies are always bad, no exceptions.  Regardless of what they may promise you, regardless of what bones they might throw you, monopolies are in a position to bend you over as far, and as often, as they feel like.  And it's pretty rare when they don't.




That said..  do you remember a few years back when rpgnow was basically the only market?
DriveThru came and people bad mouthed it for its policies.  But shouldn't those people been supporting it as an alternative to the monopoly?

Well, in thise day, this merger makes a new 800 lb gorilla of .pdf distribution.  But it isn't the only store.  Paizo, E23, and a handleful of small european stores still exist.  If the other markets merge in, then I'd be concerned.


From a publisher standpoint I've overjoyed by the prospect of it being easier to get my products to the customer.  It doesn't take away all my doubts about certain details of it.  But I'll voice those concerns to the business involved and not to my customers unless I see it seriously impacting them in the long run.


Note: I do not work for any of the .pdf stores/distribution methods, and have no vested interest in their success or failure other than as a means to get my products out to the customers. For now, I personally think customers should look at this from a positive spin for themselves, and publishers should be taken the appropriate channels to discuss their issues with those involved, so that any negative portions of the merge can be dealt with, without impacting our customers in the manner it should be.


----------



## sjmiller (Oct 27, 2006)

*edit* I see the official word from the folks at e23 was posted before my comment.  I will leave it in their capable hands.


----------



## Justin Bacon (Oct 27, 2006)

Morrus said:
			
		

> No, you haven't got this straight.  Please tone down the sarcasm.




So you're saying that JGBrowning is just flat-out lying? 

He says: "When the switch is flipped, I'm losing 10%, my vendor is going to gain my loss. And that's going to happen everyday, for every sale, *until the site growth generates 15% above and beyond what DTRPG and rpgnow.com was already growing.*" And his math seems to match the figures publicly posted by OBS.

Or perhaps you're simply saying that OBS doesn't even realize what they're doing? They're just unintentionally screwing over their publishers and were completely unaware that they were inflating their own profits? I suppose that's possible. Not likely, but possible I suppose.


----------



## philreed (Oct 27, 2006)

sjmiller said:
			
		

> Here's the official line on that from SJGames (courtesy of the SJG Forum):




My mistake, then. I had seen the link at a few different sites and it looked real enough. I apologize for spreading what turned out to be a rumor.


----------



## tensen (Oct 27, 2006)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> One thing that nobody has really talked about in this discussion is that RPGnet is also getting an affiliate store in this process -- RPGnet is one of the two largest sites (along with ENWorld), and they have not had PDF sales before.    There is some cross-traffic between RPGNet and ENWorld, but there are also "site loyalists" who stick with one community.




Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but I'm pretty sure RPGnet did have a .pdf store.  I remember having an account on it when it was around, maybe 4 years ago.  It wasn't very successful at the time, but it was pretty much the only market other than rpgnow.


----------



## sjmiller (Oct 27, 2006)

philreed said:
			
		

> My mistake, then. I had seen the link at a few different sites and it looked real enough. I apologize for spreading what turned out to be a rumor.



Not a problem.  I was very concerned when I first saw it mentioned so I rushed over to the SJG forum and posted the question.  I am thankful that the folks there quickly answered this.

I also just went back to e23.rpgnow.com and it is no longer a valid link (403 error).  Looks like the word has been spread to the right sources.


----------



## Cergorach (Oct 27, 2006)

Justin Bacon said:
			
		

> So you're saying that JGBrowning is just flat-out lying?



No, he's saying your assumptions are wrong.

It's actually more along the lines of:
The owners of DTRPG can change what they're asking to what RPGNOW is asking, thus loosing a lot of money.
The owner of RPGNOW can change what they're asking to what DTRPG is asking, thus gaining a lot of money.
I highly doubt that the owners of DTRPG want to see profits decline, and i asume that the owner of RPGNOW wants to see profits increase.
Add to that, that they now control around 90% of the RPG pdf sales, they can afford to be less nice to publishers, it's not asif the big sellers can afford to walk away...


----------



## Morrus (Oct 27, 2006)

Justin Bacon said:
			
		

> So you're saying that JGBrowning is just flat-out lying?
> 
> He says: "When the switch is flipped, I'm losing 10%, my vendor is going to gain my loss. And that's going to happen everyday, for every sale, *until the site growth generates 15% above and beyond what DTRPG and rpgnow.com was already growing.*" And his math seems to match the figures publicly posted by OBS.
> 
> Or perhaps you're simply saying that OBS doesn't even realize what they're doing? They're just unintentionally screwing over their publishers and were completely unaware that they were inflating their own profits? I suppose that's possible. Not likely, but possible I suppose.




If you're going to continue putting words into peoples' mouths (first OBS and the mine), you will be required to leave this thread.  Your opinion is welcome; rudeness is not.  Please consider this a final warning.

As per ENW policy, if you have a problem with moderation, take it up privately.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Oct 27, 2006)

Henry said:
			
		

> Warehouse 23 is definitely viable, but they don't do as much d20 business as RPGNow, DTRPG, and ENGS.
> 
> Regarding Monopolies: not only are there other PDF retailers, but people usually don't get as much up in arms over a monopoly on a luxury item.



Monopolies are measured by market share, not number of competitors. And, it doesn't matter whether or not the product is a luxury item for a merger to be blocked.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Oct 27, 2006)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> I'll repeat this, since it's getting missed in all this chicken-little-ing:
> 
> This is NOT DTRPG taking over RPGNow.    This is a new company, owned in a 50/50 partnership between James and PSI (the owners of DTRPG), now owning both sites.



OK, so it's ONE company, who will operate RPGNow and DTRPG as shell companies.

Got it.



> Let me do the math for you:   On one side of the 50/50 split, you have James Mathe, who owned Minion Development, which ran RPGNow.   On the other side of the 50/50 split, you have *multiple* shareholders in PSI, who ran DTRPG.



Who have now merged their operation. OK



> James isn't going anywhere.   This is not a DTRPG takeover.



You're right. This is a merger, with the new company that owns both operating them as shell companies, authorized distributors, affiliate companies, whatever.



> The new company is charging the same rates as DTRPG, but most of the functionality will be RPGNow's model, as I understand it.



Got it.

RPGNow's model, DTRPG's rates.



> Take a deep breath.   Calm down.     It's a merger.   It's not armageddon.    Yes, some publishers will be paying more for their sales.   I'm one of them.   But I'll be blunt:  If a *maximum* of a 10% increase is so much that the publisher feels the need to raise prices, then, simply put, they had priced their product too low to start with.



You know, I've heard from a lot of people how PDF's are a small pie with only so many slices. Having done my own, worked for about a half dozen companies, 10% IS a big deal, especially when taken off the top.

The thing that really burns me, is I'm paying an extra 10%, and I still haven't heard what, if anything, that 10% buys me.



> Feel free to discount my opinion, since I handle customer service emails for RPGNow, which, for some, makes me suspect.



I just noticed that the three big boys got together, made a merger behind the scenes, jacked up some people's rate by 10%, and expect them to be happy with it.

You take a dime out of every dollar a company makes, and they're gonna be upset.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Oct 27, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> That aside, THIS is not a monopoly.  The current store fronts are merging.  That doesn't constitute a monopoly.



So the remaining *comparable *competitors in the market are ... ?



> Anyone else CAN start a new competitor any time they want to.



Sure they can. And the chances of them doing so while being able to grant a competitive portion of the market are ... ?



> Who gets to say that the owners of the sites should be denied their right to do with their property as they wish?



I think you're confused. Nobody is discussing what the RIGHTS are of the parties involved. They're debating the proposed points that this is good for the market, won't affect profits or prices, doesn't infringe on the sort of competition that drives a market, etc. I don't think you'll find anyone here saying that James and Steve are beyond their RIGHTS.



> Beyond that, if they even start trying to "bend you over", a) you can walk away and b) the hypothetical more profits would immediately create interest in new competition.



So, if Apple and Microsoft were to merge how easy do you think it would be for a start-up to jump in and introduce a competative OS alternative to the market? Because that's essentially what we're talking about here: the two companies that, BY FAR, hold the majority of the market under their influence, merging. I don't think you're quite aware of how the previous competition between RPGnow and Drivethru affected the market, for those companies and for the publishers involved. That competition had a very real influence on what both sites offered in order to gain publisher business (or focus thereof) and also affected publisher marketing strategies.



> The world is not ending.  The world does not even have the sniffles.



All because you say so, right? It's a tad different if you've actually got money involved.

I'm not saying there isn't some good that can come from this, but right now that is all the unproven speculation of expanding exposure and a growing market that cannot currently be factually tied to anything. It's all just smoke at the moment. On the other hand, the decrease in royalty returns is *very *real. The change to marketing presence is *very *real. The ramifications of lost competition are *very *real (and are not a matter of speculation, as any business student can tell you.) The changes to PDF publisher products are *very* real due to immediate reductions to our bottom line until (if ever) such a time as the exposure increase begins to pay off.

Sorry, but things are nowhere even remotely as cut and dried, let alone smiles and giggles, as you seem to think they are.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 27, 2006)

Something just occurred to me...

The big to-do in here is that OBS is taking a larger cut off the top from the publishers.

The _assumption_ is that they are simply going to take that and line their pockets - that nothig else changes.  But that is an assumption...

What if, rather than take that as increased profit, they take it as money they intend to put back into the business?  What if it is used to pay for improved features, improved support, improved marketing and advertising.  

How this all turns out very much depends on _what OBS does with the extra cash_.  If they reinvest it, the publishers may well see a return larger than what they put in.  But nobody here knows what they plan to do.  Everyone speculates, nobody knows...


----------



## Vocenoctum (Oct 27, 2006)

Justin Bacon said:
			
		

> So, let me see if I've got this straight. OBS thinks that:
> 
> (a) The merger will produce at least a 15% increase in sales.
> (b) OBS doesn't want the publishers to benefit from that increase in sales, so they've jacked up the publishers' commissions so that OBS will be the only ones benefitting from the 15% increase in sales.
> ...



Well, remember that the big 2 merging at this point maintains the overhead of both old companies. I'm sure it won't last in the long run as they trim people or send them to other jobs, but they may have figured they were doing publishers a favor by charging them 35% instead of both old fees. (60%)

Mind you, I can't imagine that either company had a large enough crew to make it a big deal, and I also imagine that either site alone had more than enough capability to handle the "increased traffic".

It's just a consumer perspective really, but I don't see how this "merger" matters froma  technical standpoint. It seems more of a "there's less competition, so there will be more sales for the one than either of the two" deal. I don't see how either company needed the others resources.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Oct 27, 2006)

Cergorach said:
			
		

> I highly doubt that the owners of DTRPG want to see profits decline, and i asume that the owner of RPGNOW wants to see profits increase.



But if they're going to expand the market as they've said to publishers who are worried about the royalty increase, wouldn't that compensate? After all, if the arguement is supposed to appease publishers who don't like seeing their royalties shrink, how does the same point not hold in reverse?


> Add to that, that they now control around 90% of the RPG pdf sales, they can afford to be less nice to publishers, it's not asif the big sellers can afford to walk away...



Which brings us back to the whole "monopoly allows for direct market influence" arguement that was stated earlier and shot down as ludicrous.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Oct 27, 2006)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Something just occurred to me...
> 
> The big to-do in here is that OBS is taking a larger cut off the top from the publishers.
> 
> ...



I've asked twice...


Just what is this increase doing for ME? It's my pocket you're reaching in, what do I get out of this?

Increased advertising? Premium downloads? Author searches? Author bios? Company bios? Hosted company pages? Handjobs by a midget? WHAT? What am *I* getting out of this increase?


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Oct 27, 2006)

Umbran said:
			
		

> How this all turns out very much depends on _what OBS does with the extra cash_.  If they reinvest it, the publishers may well see a return larger than what they put in.  But nobody here knows what they plan to do.  Everyone speculates, nobody knows...



Kind of like the assumption that this move is going to expand the market and improve everyone's sales through the act of the merger itself, you mean?

Anyone in the PDF market knows it grows every year, but many of us have already taken advantage of that by making our products available in the companies affected by the merger. There's absolutely no evidence that the merger is going to suddenly cause a sales increase through this action. Indeed, what do you think is most likely going to happend when there's a sudden increase in the number of publishers on a single site? It's going to dilute the opportunities for individual exposure through the site and is likely going to shaft the smaller publishers who have to compete with those publishers who work primarily in the book trade because the latter will likely be seen as the priority--this is indeed one of the main reasons why the small publishers through RPGnow was such a valuable resource. There's a distinct possibility that the merger will damage the bottom tiers of the PDF industry that has essentially been acting as a guerrilla marketing tool for the top publishers and market at large.


----------



## Urizen (Oct 27, 2006)

There has been  much discussion about how BAD this is going to get.

While that is healthy discussion and it's good to be concerned about the post apocalyptic nature of a possible monopoly and speculate on how the Black hat villians with the handlebar moustaches (DTRPG and RPGNOW) are plotting to swindle all of the vendors out of their hard-earned money, I'm curious about the potential GOOD that can come from this.

Anyone up for a shift to the light side of the Force?


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Oct 27, 2006)

Urizen said:
			
		

> There has been  much discussion about how BAD this is going to get.
> 
> While that is healthy discussion and it's good to be concerned about the post apocalyptic nature of a possible monopoly and speculate on how the Black hat villians with the handlebar moustaches (DTRPG and RPGNOW) are plotting to swindle all of the vendors out of their hard-earned money, I'm curious about the potential GOOD that can come from this.
> 
> Anyone up for a shift to the light side of the Force?



That's what I keep asking.

What's this 10% gonna do for *ME* since it's coming out of my pocket.


----------



## Mark CMG (Oct 27, 2006)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Something just occurred to me...
> 
> The big to-do in here is that OBS is taking a larger cut off the top from the publishers.
> 
> The _assumption_





Nope.  That's far enough.  Just the fact that there's a cut off the top is enough to bother me.  What might or might not get done has no bearing on why I dislike paying more.


----------



## Justin Bacon (Oct 27, 2006)

Cergorach said:
			
		

> It's actually more along the lines of:
> The owners of DTRPG can change what they're asking to what RPGNOW is asking, thus loosing a lot of money.
> The owner of RPGNOW can change what they're asking to what DTRPG is asking, thus gaining a lot of money.
> I highly doubt that the owners of DTRPG want to see profits decline, and i asume that the owner of RPGNOW wants to see profits increase.
> Add to that, that they now control around 90% of the RPG pdf sales, they can afford to be less nice to publishers, it's not asif the big sellers can afford to walk away...




Ah. I see. They're not screwing publishers, they're just being "less nice" to them.

Hmm... That distinction seems completely irrelevant to me. Perhaps you could explain the significance that you're assigning to it.


----------



## Bardsandsages (Oct 27, 2006)

You know, the more this thread goes on, the happier I am.  It seems some vendors were getting better gold vendor pricing than me (20-25% as opposed to 30%), allowing them to price more competitively and make a greater profit per sale.  Now everyone will be on the same level playing field, thus making thing more fair.

And since I intend to sign the exclusivity deal, my rates won't change at all. (actually, while my rate from sales generated via ENWorld will go up, my rate for sales generated by Drivethru will go down, washing out).  

So those of you going to go raise your prices go right ahead.  I'm off to plan a nice sale for December.


----------



## Urizen (Oct 27, 2006)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> That's what I keep asking.
> 
> What's this 10% gonna do for *ME* since it's coming out of my pocket.




Let's assume for a moment that everything is on the up-and-up, that this merger is being enacted with the ebst interests of everyone in mind.

If there is an increase in traffic, that means more exposure which will likely result in larger sales which means more money for everyone.

That IS the goal, isn't it? to make things easier and better for everyone involved?

Maybe I'm just too optimistic for my own good.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 27, 2006)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> I've asked twice...




Has it occurred to you that this forum isn't the place you need to ask the question in order to get a response?  I would think the folks involved with the merger would be rather busily merging at this point, rather than lurking around on internet message boards.

If you want information from your business partner, ask them directly!  Don't ask the air in here, and then get upset when it doesn't respond.

Perhaps you, Mr. Browning, and the other publishers should be considering a united front and a letter to OBS, asking about their intended policies from this time forward.  Surely, that'd be more constuctive than shaking your fists in frustration in here, hm?

Yes, if I were them, I'd have written a letter to my current publishers, expalinging such.  But, lacking that, it does make sense to go looking for the information, no?


----------



## Justin Bacon (Oct 27, 2006)

Morrus said:
			
		

> If you're going to continue putting words into peoples' mouths (first OBS and the mine), you will be required to leave this thread.




Perhaps you could quote me doing that.

No? Then perhaps you should stop hypocritically putting words into my mouth.



> As per ENW policy, if you have a problem with moderation, take it up privately.




No problem at all. I strongly agree that anyone putting words into other people's mouths should leave this thread.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Oct 27, 2006)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Has it occurred to you that this forum isn't the place you need to ask the question in order to get a response?  I would think the folks involved with the merger would be rather busily merging at this point, rather than lurking around on internet message boards.
> 
> If you want information from your business partner, ask them directly!  Don't ask the air in here, and then get upset when it doesn't respond.
> 
> Perhaps you, Mr. Browning, and the other publishers should be considering a united front and a letter to OBS, asking about their intended policies from this time forward.  Surely, that'd be more constuctive than shaking your fists in frustration in here, hm?



Trust me, I'm not upset or shaking my fists.

I've noticed that people involved have posted since I asked the original question.

I'm not upset, shaking my fists, claiming the sky is falling, or any of that. I'm reading the multitude of threads that this merger has caused, and weighing in what all sides are saying.

Trust me, I get upset, I get banned. Plain and simple.


----------



## HinterWelt (Oct 27, 2006)

Urizen said:
			
		

> There has been  much discussion about how BAD this is going to get.
> 
> While that is healthy discussion and it's good to be concerned about the post apocalyptic nature of a possible monopoly and speculate on how the Black hat villians with the handlebar moustaches (DTRPG and RPGNOW) are plotting to swindle all of the vendors out of their hard-earned money, I'm curious about the potential GOOD that can come from this.
> 
> Anyone up for a shift to the light side of the Force?



The light burns but I am all for it.

Upsides I can think of...
A single site will be more effective pool of titles for customers. This assumes proper site design but with increased funds and staffing OBS should be able to afford to hire professional developers.

With added capital we would see an explosion of advertising on se-title targeted sites, in-print venues, and con presence. James staunchly does not believe in such things but it is a possibility. An interesting idea would be PDF work shops at cons where games are run using PDFs at the table showing the advantages of quick searching, bookmarks and the like.

hmmm...Better exposure to fan bases of larger companies for smaller press? This is a double edged sword but it could come out well. Basically, you could get WW customers looking at your latest Vampire game. The downside, of course, is you are competing against them for the vampire dollar and that means most folks will think WW before smaller press. Again, a lot of that depends on site design...

That is all I can come up with right now...sure there is more.

Bill


----------



## Morrus (Oct 27, 2006)

Justin Bacon said:
			
		

> Perhaps you could quote me doing that.
> 
> No? Then perhaps you should stop hypocritically putting words into my mouth.
> 
> ...




See you in three days.  Perhaps when you return, your manners will have improved.


----------



## Urizen (Oct 27, 2006)

It would be great to see a proffessional design.

No offense to anyone who did previous coding, but I think the design could have been more streamlined.

I think it's in OBS's best interest to get all the traffic and business the site can handle. 

Again, everyone seems to be assuming that they just want to rob us. No offense to anybody but  I think that's kind of backwards logic.

At the end of the day this is still a business and without the vendors and their products DTRPG OBS and RPGNOW wouldn't be much of anything.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 27, 2006)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> I've noticed that people involved have posted since I asked the original question.




People involved?  Maybe I missed something.  It seems to me the only employee that has posted here is GMSkarka, who _isn't involved in the decisions_.  I'm suggesting you actively seek your information from the source.  How hard would it be - each of you writing an e-mail? Going over to the forums they provide to find answers?


----------



## Mark CMG (Oct 27, 2006)

Urizen said:
			
		

> Again, everyone seems to be assuming





Nope.  That's far enough.  No assumptions necessary.  I'm strictly not happy with the rate increase regardless of what might or might not be happening in the future.  Bottom line, period.


----------



## Paradigm (Oct 27, 2006)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> Nope.  That's far enough.  Just the fact that there's a cut off the top is enough to bother me.  What might or might not get done has no bearing on why I dislike paying more.




If one averaged 25% commission from ENWGS and RPGNow prior to this merger, one would have to increase sales by 16% either due to the increased exposure (no guarantee but not unreasonable) or due to raised prices (bad for consumer) to make the same money if one was non-exclusive.

I am not pleased that our negotiated rate has changed. But, PCI is going to take the wait and see approach before we do anything with our prices.


----------



## Urizen (Oct 27, 2006)

Umbran said:
			
		

> People involved?  Maybe I missed something.  It seems to me the only employee that has posted here is GMSkarka, who _isn't involved in the decisions_.  I'm suggesting you actively seek your information from the source.  How hard would it be - each of you writing an e-mail? Going over to the forums they provide to find answers?




So what you're REALLY saying, is STFU and let the non-vendors discuss the issue.


----------



## Urizen (Oct 27, 2006)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> Nope.  That's far enough.  No assumptions necessary.  I'm strictly not happy with the rate increase regardless of what might or might not be happening in the future.  Bottom line, period.




That's Fair.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Oct 27, 2006)

To publishers:
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?p=3144090

It'd be nice to have a list of those publishers whose websites offer buying options, OBS-free.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Oct 27, 2006)

Urizen said:
			
		

> Let's assume for a moment that everything is on the up-and-up, that this merger is being enacted with the ebst interests of everyone in mind.



I think another problem with your points is that you continually seem to think that people seeing this as a bad thing are equating it to something dishonest. That need not be so, but, similarly, dishonesty isn't required for something to be less than favorable.


> If there is an increase in traffic, that means more exposure which will likely result in larger sales which means more money for everyone.
> 
> That IS the goal, isn't it? to make things easier and better for everyone involved?



Well, we're still waiting to see where this increase in traffic is coming from. There's absolutely no evidence that the merger will expand the market. Just merging consolidates the publishers, true, but for many of us who were already tapping into the affected stores, there's no increased exposure--for us to benefit from increased exposure the overall market will have to grow because of the merger. Where is the proof this is going to happen? Indeed, I don't even see anything that would support speculation at even a base level?


----------



## Mark CMG (Oct 27, 2006)

Umbran said:
			
		

> How hard would it be - each of you writing an e-mail? Going over to the forums they provide to find answers?





Well, for good or ill, it's against policy and a contract violation to some degree to discuss what transpires in the Publisher's forum.  Naturally, what is discussed between parties in email is something most would consider inappropriate, at the least, to share with the general public through an open forum.  One can discuss what one personally posts in the Publisher's forum, obviously, but to discuss what someone else posts there is a violation.  So, in answer to what seems to be your question of how hard it would be to seek answers in that manner, that's something that can't really be discussed here or with you in detail.  I think it is safe to say that this has all happened suddenly and that many of the parties involved are busy enough with logistics that keeping on top of every issue is problematic.


However, you seem to be actively discouraging a discussion here.  Why, may I ask, is that so?


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Oct 27, 2006)

Umbran said:
			
		

> People involved?  Maybe I missed something.  It seems to me the only employee that has posted here is GMSkarka, who _isn't involved in the decisions_.  I'm suggesting you actively seek your information from the source.  How hard would it be - each of you writing an e-mail? Going over to the forums they provide to find answers?



Ah, pardon me for making a mistake.

I assummed that Morrus had done some decision making regarding the merger.
I assummed that Skarka could yell across the office and ask a question, or even point to the information via link.

I'll just wait till we see something we can go and look at.


----------



## Mark CMG (Oct 27, 2006)

Paradigm said:
			
		

> If one averaged 25% commission from ENWGS and RPGNow prior to this merger, one would have to increase sales by 16% either due to the increased exposure (no guarantee but not unreasonable) or due to raised prices (bad for consumer) to make the same money if one was non-exclusive.
> 
> I am not pleased that our negotiated rate has changed. But, PCI is going to take the wait and see approach before we do anything with our prices.





That's well stated and, IMO, a wise approach.  As I more or less mention earlier, I think the next five weeks will have enough new wrinkles to make us all appear aged.


----------



## Sledge (Oct 27, 2006)

I find it harder and harder to look on the bright side when I know that RPGNow has the same errors and problems with their site that they had a year ago.  I did a test to find a specific product using searching and it never came up.  Manually going through everything was necessary... and even then it was in the WRONG category.  So I'm not seeing any benefit here for consumers.  The excuse RPGNow gave for setting up the edge was because they had customers complaining about being unable to find things. So now not only will publishers be lumped together, the engine of this lumping is one that has known issues with actually being able to find products.  I'd love to discuss this on RPGNow's private board, but I'm not a publisher and therefore not invited.  So this thread should have some justifications for the claims.  Based on what does this new company think its publishers, that are already represented on multiple sites, will have any benefit?


----------



## Kerrick (Oct 27, 2006)

> You're seeing the result of a common ENWorld phenomenon, the "vocal minority."
> 
> Quite a few publishers are happy with the merger, some are even excited by the opportunities it provides. Many have voiced their approval on RPGNow's private publisher forum, which is where any debates on this matter really should have stayed.




Sure.. a forum that a good number of us publishers, and ALL the consumers, don't have access to. A _private_ forum, which prohibits anyone involved from talking about what goes on there. Yeah. I'd rather voice my concerns on a _public_ forum, where I can communicate directly with the consumers.

And if there are so many publisher who are happy with this, how come we're not hearing from them? Why are they talking about how it's such a good thing where no one else can see? I'm sure some of them don't know about this thread, but come on... surely someone would have taken notice by now, either by checking it himself, or having someone else cross-post in that private forum. I know if I thought it were a good thing, I'd come over here and try to allay some fears, among my fellow publishers and the fans alike.


----------



## tensen (Oct 27, 2006)

Sledge said:
			
		

> I find it harder and harder to look on the bright side when I know that RPGNow has the same errors and problems with their site that they had a year ago.  I did a test to find a specific product using searching and it never came up.  Manually going through everything was necessary... and even then it was in the WRONG category.




I don't see that as an example of a problem with rpgnow. The publisher is the one that chooses/sets the categories, not rpgnow.  And from my experience, if you sent an email to rpgnow about it being in the wrong place, they are usually quick about notifying the publisher requesting the change.


----------



## Sledge (Oct 27, 2006)

The response I got from RPGNow was that they would be doing something to fix it after their graphics update.  I reminded again after the wonderful white square buttons but got no further responses.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 27, 2006)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> Well, for good or ill, it's against policy and a contract violation to some degree to discuss what transpires in the Publisher's forum.




Well, setting aside the Las Vegas analogy...

I give Warlord Ralts enough credit that he won't be disingenuous - if he says (or even just implies) he doesn't have an answer to the question, I believe him.  If he can get the answer elsewhere, he should do so, even if he cannot turn around and tell me what he found.



> However, you seem to be actively discouraging a discussion here.  Why, may I ask, is that so?




I am not discouraging discussion.  I am not telling people to shut up.  I am pointing out that folks are making large assumptions, that certain bits of information that are crucial to the discussion are not available here, and that those interested might want to go actively searching for them.  I'm encouraging folks to go out, and come back with better information, so the discussion here will be more fruitful!

And, I have to admit that I am curious, and I'm not in a position to get the information.  I am not a publisher.  I could write letters on the topic to OBS until I'm blue in the face, and they'd probably not answer me.  If Mr. Browning, Warlord Ralts, and all the others wrote, they'd probably not be ignored.  So, by urging them to do what's in their own best interests, I stand a better chance to find out what's up myself


----------



## Mark CMG (Oct 27, 2006)

Umbran said:
			
		

> I am not discouraging discussion.




Thanks.


----------



## GMSkarka (Oct 27, 2006)

Kerrick said:
			
		

> I know if I thought it were a good thing, I'd come over here and try to allay some fears, among my fellow publishers and the fans alike.




Perhaps they think they have more important things to do....like, say, running their businesses, rather than coming and posting to a thread where everybody pretty much has dug in, made up their minds, and won't be convinced by anything.   

It's not like they haven't seen this sort of thing before....like pretty much any time any announcement is made that is controversial enough to get tongues wagging.....

Hell, I regret posting -- like pretty much every other controversy that has hit Teh Intarwebs, this one has divided into its respective camps (most of whom have no direct interest in what's occuring, beyond getting into a juicy argument), and there's nothing anybody can say that will convince anyone else.

C'est la vie.

Bottom line for me:  My business will be seeing an increase in our overhead of about 10%.   I will have considerably less work to do managing my catalogue.

The data given to EVERY RPGNow publisher (but, sadly and unsurprisingly, ignored by most of them) is that over 50% of sales are driven by direct-link publisher marketing efforts, rather than browsing. That is site-wide....so that means, by law of averages, that the average includes publishers who don't do ANY direct-link marketing. For publishers like Adamant, the overwhelming majority of our sales are driven by our own marketing, not browsing -- so we're not worried about getting "lost in the shuffle" against anyone else, since most of our sales are coming from customers following specific links to our products.

I expect that my direct-link marketing will continue to be as successful as it has been, so I'm not expecting a drop in sales there.    I am expecting that I will get an increase in browsing traffic, once everything is on the single site and fans of formerly-site-exclusive publishers start seeing product that they previously were not exposed to.   I'm expecting an increase in sales from that, among other factors.

In the letter that went out to RPGNow and DTRPG publisher clients, James and Steve said: 


> _"We realize that for some RPGNow publishers, this change of rates will reflect a decrease in your royalty rate, and we want to convey that the money is not going into our grubby pockets. It's going to expand the market that we are passionate about and all depend upon to one degree or another."_




I take them at their word.  I've worked with James for 4 years, and he's never steered me wrong.  I have great respect for what Steve has accomplished as well.   I have every reason to believe that they will be spending resources on market expansion -- which helps all of us.

The PDF segment of this industry has been steadily growing -- I see no reason why that will change.   The 10% increase in my overhead is not something that I'm worried about.  At all.


----------



## Mark CMG (Oct 27, 2006)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> The data given to EVERY RPGNow publisher (but, sadly and unsurprisingly, ignored by most of them) is that over 50% of sales are driven by direct-link publisher marketing efforts, rather than browsing.





I always wonder why that is brought up since it would seem to be an argument for selling primarily through the publisher website.




			
				GMSkarka said:
			
		

> I have every reason to believe that they will be spending resources on market expansion





I look forward to seeing where the rate increase is spent.


----------



## GMSkarka (Oct 27, 2006)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> I always wonder why that is brought up since it would seem to be an argument for selling primarily through the publisher website.




Not really, once you combine it with the convience factor -- customers prefer to purchase from a single retailer, when they have the option to do so.  

Yes, the majority of our sales come from my direct-link marketing, but a quick glance at my vendor tools also show that those direct-link orders often are shared with (for example) Ronin Arts products, and vice-versa.    You see a lot of people put stuff in their shopping cart or wish list from a direct-link, and then purchase once they've got 3 or 4 products ready to go.


----------



## Bardsandsages (Oct 27, 2006)

Kerrick said:
			
		

> And if there are so many publisher who are happy with this, how come we're not hearing from them? Why are they talking about how it's such a good thing where no one else can see? I'm sure some of them don't know about this thread, but come on... surely someone would have taken notice by now, either by checking it himself, or having someone else cross-post in that private forum. I know if I thought it were a good thing, I'd come over here and try to allay some fears, among my fellow publishers and the fans alike.




I suppose I don't count?  I've posted in three different threads my opinions on the matter, to be told that I am misinformed about my own company's chances.

I agree with Gareth (whether he is an RPGNOW employee or not).  James has never given me any indication that he intends to "screw" the publishers.  In fact, he has always gone out of his way to find ways to help the publishers.  He has negotiated special advertising rates in magazines.  He instigated the distribution program to get some of our books in actual brick and mortar stores.  He pushes our products at conventions.  In short, this is a person who is actively interesting in promoting independent publishers and INCREASING the PDF market.  I have every reason to trust his judgement.


----------



## Mark CMG (Oct 27, 2006)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Not really, once you combine it with the convience factor -- customers prefer to purchase from a single retailer, when they have the option to do so.





Well, I hesitate to open this line of discussion, considering the many variables, but online ordering by any means is obviously fairly simple and convenient.  I will certainly concede that a one-click option has some immediacy advanatges over having to pull out a credit card with each purchase.  I think just having a Paypal account remedies that, though.




			
				GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Yes, the majority of our sales come from my direct-link marketing, but a quick glance at my vendor tools also show that those direct-link orders often are shared with (for example) Ronin Arts products, and vice-versa.    You see a lot of people put stuff in their shopping cart or wish list from a direct-link, and then purchase once they've got 3 or 4 products ready to go.





Again, I wonder about the impetus to bring up certain things as what you seem to be suggesting is that it's the big PDF publishers who attract most of the customers by their direct linking and that it might be best for them, considering they are also the ones being hit the hardest by the increase in rates, to form their own conglomerate and shrug off the non-exclusivity loss in favor of the additional revenues they can generate in a storefront where they set thier own rate collectively.


----------



## seasong (Oct 27, 2006)

seasong said:
			
		

> We have not been bought (or merged) with RPGNow, DriveThruRPG, or OBS. We're looking into what happened.





			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> Well, that last sentence certainly sounded ominous.



I apologize - no ominous overtones were intended. We've generally had a cordial relationship with many of those folks. We've got an official word up on our front page now. It doesn't cover our plans to rule the world, but it's otherwise as complete as we can make it.

And that second paragraph, we mean it. We do wish them the best.

I fully plan to capitalize on their new rates (I am, as I've mentioned elsewhere, a soulless corporate drone), but there's no one at RPGNow, DriveThru RPG, EN Game Store, or the newly formed OneBookShelf that I would wish any ill against.


----------



## Mark CMG (Oct 27, 2006)

Thanks for the info, seasong!  Good to see you around, too.  It's been a while.


----------



## JohnNephew (Oct 27, 2006)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> The data given to EVERY RPGNow publisher (but, sadly and unsurprisingly, ignored by most of them) is that over 50% of sales are driven by direct-link publisher marketing efforts, rather than browsing.




For exactly this reason, publishers should consider whether they should aim that direct-link marketing at a PDF vendor who gives them a bigger cut -- either a web store of their own, or another alternative like e23, where you get 23% more revenue for each copy sold.  For some publishers it may make sense to drop OBS entirely -- even losing some sales may be more than made up for if all of the remaining sales go through a higher-margin channel.  (I'm idly curious whether some of the top-volume RPGNow vendors would keep most of their volume if they didn't sell through OBS -- is it their brand recognition and reputation for quality that gets them sales, or primarily just the venue they are sold through?)

Also, publishers should think about whether an exclusive benefits them in the long run, or keeps them entirely at the mercy of the goodwill of the new company.  Without a viable competitor, publishers can expect "ya may as well, ya got no choice" to become a familiar phrase.



			
				GMSkarka said:
			
		

> I take them at their word.  I've worked with James for 4 years, and he's never steered me wrong.  I have great respect for what Steve has accomplished as well.   I have every reason to believe that they will be spending resources on market expansion -- which helps all of us.




I am sure it is their good faith intention right now.  But the reality is that they are taking control of the promotional use of those funds, and they are taking it away from manufacturers, who could have spent it on market expansion if they so wished, for their own benefit rather than the benefit of other companies.  OBS gets to decide where and how to spend those funds, and which products and lines to spend them on. I didn't see anything in the fine print about how the extra money would be dedicated to the specific manufacturers who generated it -- they could have structured it so that the difference between RPGNow and DTRPG rates was specifically dedicated to marketing efforts on behalf of the publisher whose products generated it, like a co-op credit allowance.  There's a vague promise to grow the market, but nothing concrete -- again, the arrangement could have been made on the basis of specific performance benchmarks to earn the higher rates (e.g., give publishers the current rate on the sales next year equal to this year's sales, and charge the higher rate on the increased sales, by way of proving the value of the merger).

These things would have taken more effort to plan and implement, but they would have changed their basic approach from a dictation of terms to an offer of mutual benefit.  Right now the only definite benefit is to OBS, which will make a lot more money than the two companies did separately, even if sales are stagnant.

OBS is now a bigger corporation, with more shareholders.  James doesn't have a controlling interest any longer (nor does Steve), and there's nothing to prevent them from selling some or all shares to someone else in the future, who may decide that the most profitable course is just to pocket the extra money rather than risk it on advertising and marketing schemes.  Agreements and business plans should not be built on personal trust for someone today, but a structure that will still work when parties with different motivations and personalities succeed to the respective roles in the future.


----------



## seasong (Oct 27, 2006)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> Thanks for the info, seasong!  Good to see you around, too.  It's been a while.



Hey, someone remembers me!  

I still read the forums here - posting just takes more time, so I tend to lurk all the time.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 27, 2006)

JohnNephew said:
			
		

> For exactly this reason, publishers should consider whether they should aim that direct-link marketing at a PDF vendor who gives them a bigger cut.




Coupling that with Gareth's statement that 50% of sales are from direct marketing, my experience is that a lower commisison rate is not actually an incentive to PDF publishers - with a few exceptions.  I don't foresee that changing.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 27, 2006)

JohnNephew said:
			
		

> I am sure it is their good faith intention right now.  But the reality is that they are taking control of the promotional use of those funds, and they are taking it away from manufacturers, who could have spent it on market expansion if they so wished, for their own benefit rather than the benefit of other companies.




True.  However, well-considered collective action can have greter impact than uncoordinated individual actions.  If that weren't the case, you wouldn't need to use a vendor at all.

Now, it'd be even better if they gave publishers a more detailed plan, but at least they did make some attempt to address the concern before folks asked the question.


----------



## Mark CMG (Oct 27, 2006)

Umbran said:
			
		

> True.  However, well-considered collective action can have greter impact than uncoordinated individual actions.





Which begins with individual query and discussion.




			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> If that weren't the case, you wouldn't need to use a vendor at all.





That seems to be the question being discussed by some.




			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> Now, it'd be even better if they gave publishers a more detailed plan, but at least they did make some attempt to address the concern before folks asked the question.





It's hard to take an extra 5% to 10% from people and give them no reason whatsoever.  Tends to raise some eyebrows.


----------



## Twin Rose (Oct 27, 2006)

Cergorach said:
			
		

> So i take it that pdf publishers would be interested in an e-tailer that would sell their wares at a significantly lower commision?




They say so, but the reality is, they don't really.  They hope that any site that sells their product at a lower rate makes all the sales for them, and less than 20% of the publishers actually sign up, and often discourage eachother from signing up anywhere but their preferred retailer (which, in 90% of the cases is RPGNow).


----------



## Mark CMG (Oct 27, 2006)

Twin Rose said:
			
		

> They say so, but the reality is, they don't really.  They hope that any site that sells their product at a lower rate makes all the sales for them, and less than 20% of the publishers actually sign up, and often discourage eachother from signing up anywhere but their preferred retailer (which, in 90% of the cases is RPGNow).





If you're speaking in regard to ENGS specifically, there are likely a myriad of additioinal issues involved that are too many to discuss in this thread.  While someone might start a new store and get no one to sign up, I have no doubt the situation would be quite a different one from the one here.

BTW Did you get my last email?


----------



## jgbrowning (Oct 27, 2006)

JohnNephew said:
			
		

> I am sure it is their good faith intention right now.  But the reality is that they are taking control of the promotional use of those funds, and they are taking it away from manufacturers, who could have spent it on market expansion if they so wished, for their own benefit rather than the benefit of other companies.




Indeed. The amount of money I'm losing in fee increases could be spent for a much better return to my company and an equal return for theirs. Publishers are already generating 50% of the sales for rpgnow.com and for my efforts in creating a mutally beneficial relationship with my vendor I'm going to be charged more fees to "grow the market" for their end of that 50% as opposed to using it to grow on my end of that 50%. And for them, regardless of what end the growth comes on, they'll still get the same profit. That's not necessarilly the case for me, as a growth in their site wide sales doesn't necessarily mean a growth in *my* sales.



			
				JohnNephew said:
			
		

> These things would have taken more effort to plan and implement, but they would have changed their basic approach from a dictation of terms to an offer of mutual benefit.  Right now the only definite benefit is to OBS, which will make a lot more money than the two companies did separately, even if sales are stagnant.




Yes again. If there is no growth above and beyond the historical growth of the two sites when they were independent, they've managed to fail at my expense without any risk on their end as they are going to use my money to see if it will perform.



			
				GMSkarka said:
			
		

> I expect that my direct-link marketing will continue to be as successful as it has been, so I'm not expecting a drop in sales there.




I agree.



			
				GMSkarka said:
			
		

> I am expecting that I will get an increase in browsing traffic, once everything is on the single site and fans of formerly-site-exclusive publishers start seeing product that they previously were not exposed to. I'm expecting an increase in sales from that, among other factors.




Gareth, I believe you're already at those sites. Those fans of formerly-site-exclusive publishers have already been exposed to your products and your company. You're not going to see an increase in sales in this manner because you've *already* seen your sales increase from that when you joined those respective sites.

joe b.


----------



## Twin Rose (Oct 27, 2006)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> If you're speaking in regard to ENGS specifically, there are likely a myriad of additioinal issues involved that are too many to discuss in this thread.  While someone might start a new store and get no one to sign up, I have no doubt the situation would be quite a different one from the one here.




I don't really have much else to go on.  One of the things I was told frequently, however, was that people liked to drive sales to a site where they weren't in the "top seller" list such as RPGNow specifically to try and climb it.  In the case of edge publishers, they invariably chose to link to edge with the hopes of climbing onto the "real site".  In many cases, we didn't even get product releases until a week after the initial launch, with 0 support on their home pages or a secondary press release saying, "Now available at ENGS".  Essentially, people hoping that ENGS would get all their sales through customers browsing product.

The reality is, this is a very small percentage of customers at any PDF retailer.

The EN World review database had about 100 links to products on ENGS before.  Now it will have some 1500 links to the affiliate store.  I can't give exact numbers, but a lot of our sales would ahve a sales source such as, "Review of Product X".  That customer may not even have bought product X, instead buying 3 other products similar to it, or from the same publisher.   So, in this particular instance, there should be a tremendous growth of sales across the board.

I expect people will just be trying that much harder to 'climb the top list' and consolodating it.  This is my theory, mind... One I'm banking on much as ENP is - I am going from 0% comission of sales of Campaign Suite and related products to 35%.  That's 10 dollars or more per sale for me.  Looking at the sales analasis from ENGS, more than 50% of customers came looking at one product - whether from banners, whatever, and bought something else while they were there anyway.



			
				Mark CMG said:
			
		

> BTW Did you get my last email?




I got the email.  You should have some money waiting in your paypal.


----------



## Mark CMG (Oct 27, 2006)

Twin Rose said:
			
		

> I got the email.  You should have some money waiting in your paypal.




Thanks.


----------



## philreed (Oct 27, 2006)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> Thanks.




I'm jealous.


----------



## Mark CMG (Oct 27, 2006)

philreed said:
			
		

> I'm jealous.




As well, no doubt, as being in need of considerably more digits than I received.  Good luck.


----------



## Twin Rose (Oct 27, 2006)

philreed said:
			
		

> I'm jealous.




If you'd rather be paid by paypal let me know and we can just clear it all up.


----------



## Cathix (Oct 27, 2006)

Jdvn1 said:
			
		

> To publishers:
> http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?p=3144090
> 
> It'd be nice to have a list of those publishers whose websites offer buying options, OBS-free.




Actually this merger has made me reconsider selling pdf's from our website. We were only going to sell our books POD from our own site, but maybe there's merit in making the pdf's available there as well. While I'm not sure what to think of the merger yet (aside from the obvious larger fee), I have briefly considered what it'd be like if the stores' server crashes.


----------



## Yair (Oct 28, 2006)

Ehm, interesting discussion and all.

[threadjack]







			
				JohnNephew said:
			
		

> Yeah, I saw that.  No doubt they thought it was legitimate to substitute "OBS" for "RPGNow," since it's a successor entity; but it was going to look a bit awkward with OBS not actually offering any Atlas titles.
> 
> -John Nephew
> President, Atlas Games



OK, so I see no Atlas Games products at RPGNow anymore, but the thing is - where is the free Ars Magica Fourth Edition pdf? I don't see it on e23. Entire games are riding on it being available for free, you know. Don't leave us hanging...
[/threadjack]

Ehem. Yeah, very nice thread you got here. :whistles:


----------



## Monte At Home (Oct 28, 2006)

Morrus said:
			
		

> I'm not saying it magically creates new customers; I'm saying that the combined customer base of all three stores will have more choice and variety.  And these things lead to more purchasing.




While I believe you are 100% right, I think that the merger is a good thing for even more esoteric, but ultimately more important (long term) reasons. I'm the guy who was saying that pdfs were the next big thing for rpgs back in May of 2001 when Sue and I cobbled together the Book of Eldritch Might and no one had heard of such a thing. I think the pdf market's success or failure all rides on the ability of those involved to look ahead.

Today I'm told that pdfs account for around 10% of rpg products sold. Cool. But what's exciting to me about that isn't that it's grown that much, but that it's that things are going that well and yet there's still so many people out there who think of pdfs as something brand new, or haven't yet started buying pdfs at all. There's a lot of room for growth. A lot. And frankly, I see this merger as a nicely paved road for that growth to happen. Basically, it's one unified voice that can more efficiently market to and educate potential customers as well as new publishers (or, more likely, print publishers still leery of the format, like WotC). These are the things that will grow the pdf market in the long term and I think One Book Shelf will be able to do it more efficiently. 

I'll be blunt. I think it would be short sighted for a pdf publisher not to be a part of this.


----------



## JohnNephew (Oct 28, 2006)

Yair said:
			
		

> [threadjack]
> OK, so I see no Atlas Games products at RPGNow anymore, but the thing is - where is the free Ars Magica Fourth Edition pdf? I don't see it on e23. Entire games are riding on it being available for free, you know. Don't leave us hanging...
> [/threadjack]




I haven't talked with Thomas at e23 about it yet, but I was going to ask if they would like to host the free download now.  Given that it had over 28,000 downloads at RPGNow, last time I checked, I imagine it would be a good thing for helping e23's visibility.  I know a lot of customers lured into setting up an account with RPGNow to get the free ArM4 PDF wound up becoming purchasers of other items.

RPGNow sprang the news of all this upon all of us vendors just yesterday, less than a day's notice in advance, so we didn't have a lot of time to react or lay plans.  It was just coincidence that I had finally gotten things rolling with e23 -- now I'll be looking for some active ways to promote our new arrangement.

In the meantime, I'm actually uploading some older Ars titles to e23 (titles that had been on RPGNow, but hadn't made it up to e23 yet) in the background even as I type this.


----------



## Mark CMG (Oct 28, 2006)

Monte At Home said:
			
		

> I'll be blunt. I think it would be short sighted for a pdf publisher not to be a part of this.





I'll be blunt.  I'd have no current reservations being a part of this _if it were not for the rate increase_.


----------



## Pielorinho (Oct 28, 2006)

seasong said:
			
		

> Hey, someone remembers me!



Are you kidding?  You're one of my favorite posters!  It's definitely good to see you around.

(re: the business side:  I've worked for nonprofits and the government far too long to have any business sense left, so I've genuinely got no opinion about the merits of the merger, any more than I have an opinion about quantum physics.  I'm just glad it's something that interests other people).

Daniel


----------



## Yair (Oct 28, 2006)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> (re: the business side:  I've worked for nonprofits and the government far too long to have any business sense left, so I've genuinely got no opinion about the merits of the merger, any more than I have an opinion about quantum physics.  I'm just glad it's something that interests other people)



You've got no opinion on quantum physics?! BLASPHEMY!
  - Yair, a physicist


----------



## JohnNephew (Oct 28, 2006)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> I'll be blunt.  I'd have no current reservations being a part of this _if it were not for the rate increase_.




Indeed.  You're in a prisoner's dilemma.

If enough publishers decided not to accept the new arrangements and cancelled their agreements with OBS, then OBS would be strongly pressured to negotiate terms more favorable to the publishers -- otherwise they would wind up with less profit together than they had separately.

However, each publisher makes their decision in isolation; they can't be sure what other publishers will do.  If OBS holds fast and only a few publishers peel off, then those publishers who leave are left with nothing where they used to have the majority of their sales.  Moreover, we know that many publishers have already signed exclusives, which further hurts the viability of any future competitor who won't be able to stock those exclusive lines; and many major publishers in the print arena just don't think PDFs are big enough a deal to pay very close attention to the petty details -- they just look at the dollar figure on the checks they cash.

If a publisher decides to swallow their pride and say "thank you sir, please may I have another" when given a deep cut to their wages (in effect), they'll take a hit to their income, but that's better in the short term than no sales at all. In the long run, you can darn sure expect that they will get another cut, sooner or later -- if not from today's bosses, then tomorrow's. Publishers who have trouble saying "no thank you" today will have an even harder time tomorrow. If you can't say no and walk away from a deal, you're not negotiating, you're begging for charity.

I decline to sell products through the new OBS for the same reason I had declined DTRPG -- I think the terms are lousy, and they signal the market that publishers are open to having more taken from them.  No one should be surprised that RPGNow heard that signal loud and clear.


----------



## Mark CMG (Oct 28, 2006)

JohnNephew said:
			
		

> If enough publishers decided not to accept the new arrangements . . .




With the possibility of price hikes, I believe that both vendors and consumers have a stake in this.  Perhaps, just a joint request from those two groups for the rescindment of the rate increase will have some effect.  To that end, I see no reason why a petition can't be started to get the simple message across.  Click here to view it, please.


----------



## 2WS-Steve (Oct 28, 2006)

JohnNephew said:
			
		

> If enough publishers decided not to accept the new arrangements and cancelled their agreements with OBS, then OBS would be strongly pressured to negotiate terms more favorable to the publishers -- otherwise they would wind up with less profit together than they had separately.




A bunch of publishers though, and several awfully big ones, have already said that the DTRPG rate was okay -- and even though they could get a lower rate out of what was the most well-known PDF vendor brand in the industry. I would think that in order for a movement to be effective you'd need to get those folks online.

*****

From a customer standpoint, I have to say I really like the new merged stores -- much easier for shopping and now I can spend my small sale earnings on practically any book from any publisher. The massive selection combined with the fact it targets my favorite hobby makes it as useful for me as iTunes or Amazon -- and I think that can be truly transformative.


----------



## philreed (Oct 28, 2006)

JohnNephew said:
			
		

> If a publisher decides to swallow their pride and say "thank you sir, please may I have another"  . . .




That's pretty much, word for word, exactly what I said to someone today.

To be honest, refusing their terms and refusing to sell at the new site will mean the end of Ronin Arts and will force me to find a job. As of this moment I don't know what to do.

Anyone out there need a new telecommuter with a variety of skills?


----------



## Urizen (Oct 28, 2006)

Steve Conan Trustrum said:
			
		

> I think another problem with your points is that you continually seem to think that people seeing this as a bad thing are equating it to something dishonest. That need not be so, but, similarly, dishonesty isn't required for something to be less than favorable.
> 
> Well, we're still waiting to see where this increase in traffic is coming from. There's absolutely no evidence that the merger will expand the market. Just merging consolidates the publishers, true, but for many of us who were already tapping into the affected stores, there's no increased exposure--for us to benefit from increased exposure the overall market will have to grow because of the merger. Where is the proof this is going to happen? Indeed, I don't even see anything that would support speculation at even a base level?




I'm just trying to be optimistic.

Granted, this is an extremely difficult situation. I hope that somehow it works out for all parties involved, because I think ultimately the merger is a good thing.


----------



## Yair (Oct 28, 2006)

philreed said:
			
		

> To be honest, refusing their terms and refusing to sell at the new site will mean the end of Ronin Arts and will force me to find a job. As of this moment I don't know what to do.



If I may suggest: accept their offer, you don't really have a choice. But don't go for exclusivity, and work to bolster the sales from other channels until perhaps, one day, you'll be able to gain economic independence and cut them off. 

Or perhaps you'll one day decide to just ignore the whole issue, realizing you're still making good money. Or to return to a normal job and retire from RPGs. Or to negotiate a better deal. Or whatever. In any case, it seems to me you can certainly afford to take your time and delay that decision - it's not THAT large of a change as to render your current economic plans untennable, right?

And in the future, try not to rely on a single vendor (to the degree that you can).

Just MO, of course. I would hate to see you leave the scene because of this merger.


----------



## Paradigm (Oct 28, 2006)

If people object to the new terms and conditions due to the merger, then just object. I've already emailed concerns regarding the new contract to the folks at RPGNow. 

Consolidation is not neccessarily good for the industry, especially once the merged sites become one venue. Distributor consolidation was not a good thing for the print industry. Right now I am looking at higher commission rates but, I am willing to see if there is an adequate sales increase before I change what I charge.


----------



## Alzrius (Oct 28, 2006)

seasong said:
			
		

> I apologize - no ominous overtones were intended. We've generally had a cordial relationship with many of those folks. We've got an official word up on our front page now. It doesn't cover our plans to rule the world, but it's otherwise as complete as we can make it.
> 
> And that second paragraph, we mean it. We do wish them the best.
> 
> I fully plan to capitalize on their new rates (I am, as I've mentioned elsewhere, a soulless corporate drone), but there's no one at RPGNow, DriveThru RPG, EN Game Store, or the newly formed OneBookShelf that I would wish any ill against.




No apologies were necessary. My smiley was supposed to indicate that I wasn't being too serious. It's just that last line, "We're looking into what happened." sounded like something you'd hear from a Man In Black, or something. I just sounded ominous, but I didn't really mean that I thought there was anything truly sinister going on.


----------



## kigmatzomat (Oct 28, 2006)

I'll post my reasons, as a consumer, why I dislike mergers that consolidate >60% of the market into one vendor when it was previously more fractious.

1. Single point of failure.  If something takes out OBS then I won't have access to my existing purchases.  I tend to shop for PDFs at work on lunch and then download them later at home.  

2.  Single choke point.  I've had bad experiences with some companies and I generally don't go back.  Now if I have a problem with OBS I've got no alternative vendors.  

3.  Cost.  Megavendors ultimately result in either increased cost (by increasing profits) or shoddier products (by passing costs onto suppliers).  Maybe not today, but eventually.  (I'm lookin' at you Walmart!)  And from Joe's stance, the "passing cost to suppliers" has already started.  


What do I gain?

1. Convenience.  Which is not the factor online that it is with brick&mortar.  I make a bookmark, save a cookie, and I'm in like Flynn at five different vendors.  

2. Wider selection.  Yes, I may have missed "ThingofBeauty" when I was browsing the "you might also like..." links from VendorA.  Truth of the matter is I rely more on product reviews than browsing.  I'm already drowning in the sheer quantity of PDF products so if it isn't from someone I already know and trust (Hi Phil & Joe!) it better be darned cheap.  

3.  Advertising.  Whee.  Maybe Joe & Phil will have the time to check and make sure the combined OBS banner presence significantly outweighs the combined ENGS/DTN/RPGN banners but I don't give a whoop.  

So I, as a consumer, don't really see an advantage.  I've heard at best ambivalent statements from the publishers.  

I expect OBS has no more than year to either produce the magical increases in sales or they will find publishers are both dying and conspiring to create their own PDF mall.  

I really think they'd have been better off taking the increases in efficiency that come with the merger as their profit boost, skim off the new folks, and grandfather in the rest.  Actually, I'm kind of surprised they can rewrite the contracts at will but I haven't seen any of the contracts nor am I a contract lawyer.


----------



## Pielorinho (Oct 28, 2006)

Yair said:
			
		

> You've got no opinion on quantum physics?! BLASPHEMY!
> - Yair, a physicist



Once I study it, I'll either approve or disapprove of it.  Until then, I exist in a state of simultaneously approving and disapproving of it: my opinion is indeterminate.

Daniel


----------



## Vigilance (Oct 28, 2006)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> Once I study it, I'll either approve or disapprove of it.  Until then, I exist in a state of simultaneously approving and disapproving of it: my opinion is indeterminate.
> 
> Daniel




So you're Schroedinger's Poster?

Chuck


----------



## Morrus (Oct 28, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> So you're Schroedinger's Poster?




Don't explain his joke!  Jokes are always less funny when they're explained!


----------



## Vigilance (Oct 28, 2006)

Morrus said:
			
		

> Don't explain his joke!  Jokes are always less funny when they're explained!




Doh! Sorry!


----------



## Mark CMG (Oct 28, 2006)

The rate increase is not only likely to mean higher prices for the end user, but lower wages/rates for freelance writers, artists, editors, etc.


______________

[highlight]Regarding the planned publisher rate increase by OBS (formed by the merger of RPGNow.com and DTRPG) - _"With the possibility of price hikes, I believe that both vendors and consumers have a stake in this.  Perhaps, just a joint request from those two groups for the rescindment of the rate increase will have some effect.  To that end, I see no reason why a petition can't be started to get the simple message across.  Click here to view it, please."_
- Mark Clover, CreativeMountainGames.com[/highlight]


----------



## BSF (Oct 28, 2006)

I received the email announcing the merger yesterday and wondered what the consensus would be.  Sadly because of how busy I have been at work and home lately, it took a while to catch up on everything.  

I try to be an informed consumer.  From the customer perspective in terms of availability, I like the idea of the merger.  More titles available from what amounts to one source.  Cool!

But this is also a small industry and despite having never met any of the PDF publishers, I appreciate the sense of community and their contributions to it.  I have a personal interest in seeing individual publishers succeed.  Whenever possible, I like to purchase from places that drive the best value for my favorite publishers.  Why?  Because that rewards these creative individuals as much as I can.  

Gaming material is a luxury item for me.  I will buy it so long as it fills my luxury desires.  I accomodate rising costs until I reach the point where I would rather buy other luxury items.  

In the end it is business, but it is business that is supported by, and supports, the gaming hobby.  

One of the reasons I wanted to check the threads was to hear what the buzz is about rates.  Another was to hear what would happen for the vendors that are already on all the listed sites.  I am annoyed that there appear to be at least some vendors that recently signed on with multiple  vendors and did not derive any benefit from the diversification.  I would hope that something could be done for those vendors that signed on with all entities.    Mind you, I don't know that there is a business obligation to do that.  But to allow a vendor to spend the sign up fees, knowing that you are getting ready to make those fees redundant, isn't particulary compassionate.  

I am annoyed that OBS is taking a higher percentage, apparently without providing specifics on what the added value is.  Perhaps it is still too soon and the specifics haven't been worked out?  Could be.  But it seems like a prudent business merger would have all those details worked out in advance of the announcement.  

You know, in a different industry, I would be very dubious.  But I do have respect for the people running the sites involved and I don't think they intend to cut into the bottom line of PDF publishers without offering any value.  (It could end up that they do just that.  Which would irritate me a great deal.)  But I do hope that there are better details being revealed for the publishers somewhere.  Otherwise, I can't fault the dissatisfaction of people that have worked hard to build up a fanbase and market their individual companies.  Indeed, I would expect those publishers to look for different options.  I will follow publishers I respect to whatever outlet they choose to use.  This is a small enough industry that it sure isn't very hard to find out where a given publisher has moved to for sales.  In many cases, if I had trouble finding a product from a publisher I respect, I would just open one of the PDFs I do have, find an email address and ask.  

This isn't doom and gloom time.  But I understand why some publishers might be concerned that their bottom line is being negatively impacted here.  I also understand why some publishers might not be concerned at all, or perhaps even excited.  I hope all the publishers involved have great success, regardless of what they choose to do in the aftermath of this merger.  In the end, these are business decisions.  But it is a small industry and it is easy to associate individual names with these businesses.  In that respect we are lucky.  Those of us that are fans of PDFs usually have ready exposure to the people providing those PDFs.  So yes, these are business decisions but these are also people.  People that I know from messageboards and emails.  

I hope OBS can get the details together, or change the direction of some decisions, so that this becomes a win-win situation for all the people involved.  Because when the distributors are winning (OBS) and the publishers are winning (Ronin Arts, Expeditious Retreat, etc) then I feel like I am winning.  

I'm just one guy, one customer.  All I am doing is tossing my thoughts out into the open just so everyone can see how one guy might be thinking.  I wish all of you luck with this merger and I certainly hope it strengthens my hobby.  But I do like to hear some of the details from time to time because I try to support my favorite publishers when I can.


----------



## seasong (Oct 28, 2006)

JohnNephew said:
			
		

> I haven't talked with Thomas at e23 about it yet, but I was going to ask if they would like to host the free download now.



Go ahead an upload it with the rest, and I'll make sure it is handled with appropriate reverence.


----------



## Paradigm (Oct 28, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Doh! Sorry!




Anyone that didn't get that cat's joke, won't get the explaination either!


----------



## Steve DriveThruRPG (Oct 28, 2006)

It's nice to see a vigorous thread.

As I have mostly been focusing on the dedicated publisher forum that we have for OneBookShelf publishers and on private e-mails from some publsiher partners, I regret I'm a late-comer to this thread.

I would submit that over the two and half years of DTrpg's extistence, our record is indisputable that we have helped grow the RPG pdf market, and we have helped grow the revenue of the publishers who have joined us as partners. We have continually added more publisher tools and features to make it easier for publishers to use our site. We have full-time staff to help publishers get set-up on site or run promotions.

For customers, we have worked our tails off over these past years to get a lot of publishers to bring greater selection to the pdf market. I submit that we have clearly succeeded in doing so. We also continually improve our site to make browsing and shopping easier (Yeah there's a lot left to be done, but relative to where we started, we continue to make significant improvements). We have full-time staff to solve customer problems in a timely and professional manner.

I also submit that James at RPGNow is indisputably a pioneer of RPG downloads and has done as much or more than any other human on the planet to grow this market.

It is therefore rather difficult to read a thread where fellow professionals like John Nephew frame James and I (and our now collective company) as some great evil that will be the ruin of our publisher partners and the RPG download market. It is hard not to interpret this message as "Hey, that money of yours you spent starting this business and that ton of work you've done for years to make this market better for everyone, well now that you've done a good job of that and created a bigger market, you're now enemy number 1".

If DriveThruRPG and RPGNow have succeeded in creating more market and market share than our esteemed competitors at sites like e23 and Paizo, doesn't that mean we've been doing something right for publishers and our customers?

When we talk about our optimisim that the download market has lots of room left to grow and that we believe we can continue to put more total royalty dollars into the hands of our publsiher partners (a great many of whom James and I consider friends) and more value in front of customers, well according to some on this thread, that's just insubstantial "smoke" we're blowing.

Haven't we earned a little credibility yet? Don't we have a 2 1/2 year and over 4 year track record of evidence of helping grow the market? When we say we believe we can continue to do so, I think we have a record to support that.

The point was raised that rather than OneBookShelf receiving a higher fee from publishers so that it could go out and spend money to grow the market, OneBookShelf should instead receive a lower fee and let publishers retain that money to grow the market however they feel best serves them. In many market situations, I would agree. We are and our publisher partners are entreprenuers and with that comes a lot of desire for self-determinism. Sometimes though that's not the best road forward.

For example, "Got Milk?" or other cooperative marketing campaigns for oranges, almonds or all sorts so items. I don't know the whole story behind any of thess efforts but what I surmise is that dairy farmers were smart enough to understand that they would all benefit more if some of their promotional resources were pooled into a joint marketing effort to grow the total market of milk drinkers, rather than dedicate their promotional resources to battling each other.

With the RPG download market growing steadily year over year and with it only comprising 11% of the total RPG market, we believe that this is a situation where everyone will be best served with what is essentially a co-operative marketing program focused on expanding the market. If that proves to be wrong then we will have financially ill-served our publisher partners AND ourselves.

To clarify another point. The merger of DTrpg and RPGNow was not about consolidating overhead and cost savings. No employees were laid off, both sites continue to run in tandem. We'll negotiate a slightly more favorable rate for payment processing, but otherwise there's not a lot of cost savings going on. The merger is about putting more resources to work in a unfied effort to grow the market, not about paring things down.

I'm not one for long messageboard discussions or point by point debates. Our publisher partners can better reach me by private e-mail or phone call or on the private publisher forum. I don't mean to be exclusionary with communication, it's just an issue of time and quality of conversation.

Steve Wieck
OneBookShelf


----------



## Mark CMG (Oct 28, 2006)

Steve DriveThruRPG said:
			
		

> I'm not one for long messageboard discussions or point by point debates.





That won't be necessary.  There's only one point to be made.  While I am keen on your interest in growing the industry, I do not believe the industry is best served by your removing from the publishers, in advance, the profits you claim will be forthcoming.  As but one of many publisher-pioneers, I congratulate you on the merger but disagree with the rate increase.  I am going to continue to submit that this is a poor decision on the part of OBS and that it needs to be rescinded.


----------



## Cergorach (Oct 28, 2006)

Steve imagine that the US government would tax you an aditional 15% because you just merged. I don't think you would be happy, i think you would consider not merging. The same goes for some of the publishers....


----------



## Yair (Oct 28, 2006)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> Once I study it, I'll either approve or disapprove of it.  Until then, I exist in a state of simultaneously approving and disapproving of it: my opinion is indeterminate.
> 
> Daniel





...although technically (and pedantly) the state is determinate, it is just in a superposition until it is determined...


----------



## philreed (Oct 28, 2006)

To be clear, I don't think anyone involved with RPGNow or DTRPG is evil. I just think that they're looking at the merger from their perspective. I know that if I was in their seat I would have likely done the exact same thing in this shrinking market.

What bothers me is that it has been all "we will do this and you will accept." After years of thinking that I was a partner in this industry it is revealed that I am nothing more than a source of funds. After paying RPGNow alone over $12,000 -- last year alone -- I discover that I haven't bought good will or respect; I've only purchased a chance to pay even more for a _potential_ increase in sales and without any method in place to repair the rate change if that potential is not met.

I am expected to, as a leap of faith, jump in and be happy at the change.


----------



## Master01 (Oct 28, 2006)

philreed said:
			
		

> That's pretty much, word for word, exactly what I said to someone today.
> 
> To be honest, refusing their terms and refusing to sell at the new site will mean the end of Ronin Arts and will force me to find a job. As of this moment I don't know what to do.
> 
> Anyone out there need a new telecommuter with a variety of skills?




I'm exactly in your situation Phil, but still considering to be off of RPGnow/DTRPG and try to sell through other venues such as wargamedownload, Arima, Paizo and E23

However, I don't know what to do yet...


----------



## der_kluge (Oct 28, 2006)

If you'd like to register a formal complaint with the FTC (Federal Trade Commission), you can do so here:

https://rn.ftc.gov/pls/dod/wsolcq$.startup?Z_ORG_CODE=PU01 

The name of the company would be "http://enworld.rpgnow.com/" - so that all complaints go in the same bucket.

The address is:
RPGNow.com
4631 S. 108th St.
Greenfield, WI 53228

company email address is: webmaster@rpgnow.com


----------



## FraserRonald (Oct 28, 2006)

philreed said:
			
		

> That's pretty much, word for word, exactly what I said to someone today.
> 
> To be honest, refusing their terms and refusing to sell at the new site will mean the end of Ronin Arts and will force me to find a job. As of this moment I don't know what to do.




Ronin Arts is a very influential company. I would agree that at this time, you pretty much need to stickwith OBS, but if you work to associate RA with another etailer (like e23), since 50% of the sales are based on direct link, RA could help to grow that vendor (with its lower commissions) to make that a viable option if this question arises again. Sword's Edge Publishing is a tiny little blip, but that's the plan that I intend to follow.



			
				philreed said:
			
		

> Anyone out there need a new telecommuter with a variety of skills?




Not really and couldn't afford you anyway.


----------



## Fedifensor (Oct 28, 2006)

I avoided DriveThru RPG like the plague after the whole Watermarked PDF fiasco.  As a consumer, I'd like to be reassurred that I will have an easy way to identify watermarked PDF's so I can avoid buying them.

As an observer, I feel that a 1-day notice that a publisher's online store will be taking a bigger cut of the pie is extremely bad form.  I don't get to see what happens behind the scenes, but it seems like the three largest PDF selling sites just said, "Take it or leave it" to their vendors, and their merger gives them the muscle to make most of them take it...


----------



## JohnNephew (Oct 28, 2006)

Hey, Steve.

First off, congratulations on the merger.  You have accomplished a monumental task by entering this space so aggressively, building DTRPG to such size and profitability, and then accomplishing this merger, which positions you to dominate this market.

Likewise, I have great respect for James, and I was proud to support his efforts to build this market by being one of the earliest print publishers to offer pay-downloads through RPGNow, and to offer with him the ground-breaking free download of our flagship core RPG (Ars Magica) to help promote his site, at a time when many of our peers were afraid of the medium or didn't think it would amount to anything financially meaningful.  I also felt a personal loyalty to him and his project, which for a long time -- probably too long -- kept me from signing up to offer our downloads through other services, even if they offered terms as good or better than RPGNow's.



			
				Steve DriveThruRPG said:
			
		

> It is therefore rather difficult to read a thread where fellow professionals like John Nephew frame James and I (and our now collective company) as some great evil that will be the ruin of our publisher partners and the RPG download market.




I'm sorry it sounds that way to you.  "Evil" in particular would be an inappropriate word. Rather, OBS has economic interests that are not the same as the publishers and the consumers, and vice versa.  A consolidation of market power and the ability to dictate terms at will to publishers is a great thing for OBS' business flexibility, growth, and profitability, but how much of that trickles down to publishers will be up to your discretion.

I think my record is pretty consistent in terms of concern about competition.  Years ago, when our biggest customer, soon after their creation by merger, suggested to me that they should be given preferential treatment in payment terms, I put them on COD-only and left them there for several years. Even now, there is no one customer so important to Atlas Games that we could not survive and even remain profitable without them, and I think it is in my best interests to keep it that way. I value all of our customers, and I hope to continue doing profitable business for a long time to come with all of them -- but the fact that I can always say "no thank you" and walk a way gives me a clear head for evaluating things. And even when it ruffled some feathers, I have spoken out about consolidation that I thought would lead to bad things for the industry (as in my article in Pyramid about the proposed B/Z/A merger years ago -- a merger that thankfully did not go through).

I'd be happy to work with OBS if it could be done on a level playing field with other vendors (for example, a "wholesale price" arrangement, as I described earlier in this thread, letting vendors add whatever mark-up they think would work for their business plan; and the market would find the right level for prices to consumers).  If that's something that could work, I'd be very interested, because I think it would result in competition that would benefit consumers and drive greater sales for all.  Perhaps it's something that OBS might consider for the future -- I'm sure there's quite enough to deal with in bringing the two companies into one right now.


----------



## JohnNephew (Oct 28, 2006)

Fedifensor said:
			
		

> As an observer, I feel that a 1-day notice that a publisher's online store will be taking a bigger cut of the pie is extremely bad form.




To clarify, the cost increase takes effect on December 1st, so OBS gave publishers more than the contractually obliged 30 days' advance notice of a rate change.


----------



## mythusmage (Oct 28, 2006)

As I understand it, the merger means increased sales - through increased exposure - for the publisher. It also means increased commissions - through increased sales - for OBS. Now since the publisher will get more money overall from more sales, doesn't that mean OBS will be getting more money overall from comissions?

If that's the case, why doesn't OBS lower their rates? Since One Book Shelf is the 800 pound gorilla in this market, and so has no real competition, a commission of 20% (non-exclusive) or 15% (exclusive) sounds about right.

Make up in volume what you lose in individual commissions, thus making the store more attractive to publishers and drawing more in.


----------



## Fedifensor (Oct 28, 2006)

JohnNephew said:
			
		

> To clarify, the cost increase takes effect on December 1st, so OBS gave publishers more than the contractually obliged 30 days' advance notice of a rate change.



Maybe I phrased this poorly.  One of the earlier posts in this thread mentioned that the vendors were just informed of this the other day.  So, basically, the merger happened and the vendors were told what the new rates would be, without any discussion or period of comment solicited from OBS.  Now you have people like Atlas Games and Ronin Arts having to make difficult decisions on very short notice.  If they choose to have their products sold on OBS at all, even during the grace period until December 1st, they're driving their customers to a site that they may not being doing business with in a month.  If a vendor ends up going to e23 or another site, it's better to make the move as quickly as possible and get the word out so their following of consumers migrates to the new site with them.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Oct 28, 2006)

mythusmage said:
			
		

> As I understand it, the merger means increased sales - through increased exposure - for the publisher. It also means increased commissions - through increased sales - for OBS. Now since the publisher will get more money overall from more sales, doesn't that mean OBS will be getting more money overall from comissions?
> 
> If that's the case, why doesn't OBS lower their rates? Since One Book Shelf is the 800 pound gorilla in this market, and so has no real competition, a commission of 20% (non-exclusive) or 15% (exclusive) sounds about right.
> 
> Make up in volume what you lose in individual commissions, thus making the store more attractive to publishers and drawing more in.



That's where I got lost. OBS will already be drawing more income than any one publisher. The royalty increase has been justified, in part, by the supposed growth of the market to follow that will absorb the lost revenue to publishers. How then does the same arguement not stand against OBS when reversed? The lost revenue certainly strikes against the individual publisher more than it does OBS, who has its fingers in every publisher's pie.


----------



## JohnNephew (Oct 28, 2006)

I see what you mean, yes.

Indeed, I read the e-mail about the merger Thursday evening, after a long drive home from Omaha, and realized that if I wanted to do something I had to act before going to bed.  I figured it would be better not to have customer confusion by having our catalog appear on the DTRPG site for a short while and then vanish, so I immediately disabled all of our catalog on RPGNow and e-mailed a formal notice to James of termination of our distribution agreement.

I just don't want anyone to have a mistaken impression that RPGNow did anything inappropriate vis a vis their contract with publishers.


----------



## Vascant (Oct 28, 2006)

Personally I think a lot are missing the point, OBS is a business and such as they can make decisions based on their interests.  This has been going on for quite a while now, anyone recall when RPGNow split into two sites?  So you don't like the new deal... You have the same right they do as a company to make decisions for what's good for you. 

I made over 60k last year and only paid out a little under 5k in fees (mostly paypal fees) running things from my own site.  I have found most customers would rather buy directly from the owner because they do understand the business, they do understand there is a decent size percentage that a retail outlet takes.  Sure this has forced me to learn some web development skills but at some point you have to ask yourself, what is your pride worth?  Based on the post I seen from the owner of OBS, I would be incline to think that they are not going to change their policy so why debate it?  Just make the decision that's good for you and move in that direction.

Example: Mr Phil Reed has to perhaps one of the most under-marketted people in d20, his catalog is 2nd to none and has something for just about any person in gaming.  Thats also his downfall too, there is so much it is hard to put that product in front of a customer.  A generic retail outlet doesn't exploit his strength and in fact, turns his strength into a weakness.

In any industry there always comes a time when companies need to re-define or re-invent themselves in order to survive to the next step.  If you don't do something now, then start wording your complaints now for when OBS does it's next rate increase.  You will be at the same situation you are in now, either accept or leave.


----------



## Alzrius (Oct 28, 2006)

Fedifensor said:
			
		

> I avoided DriveThru RPG like the plague after the whole Watermarked PDF fiasco.  As a consumer, I'd like to be reassurred that I will have an easy way to identify watermarked PDF's so I can avoid buying them.




You'll have an easy way to identify watermarked PDFs. If you go through RPGNow's publisher listings, any company that is there now through the merger, and thus still offers only watermarked PDFs, will have a large notice in red (just under the file size and price) that this PDF is watermarked.


----------



## HinterWelt (Oct 28, 2006)

Steve DriveThruRPG said:
			
		

> It's nice to see a vigorous thread.
> 
> As I have mostly been focusing on the dedicated publisher forum that we have for OneBookShelf publishers and on private e-mails from some publsiher partners, I regret I'm a late-comer to this thread.
> 
> ...




What?!?!? I have been signed up with your service for over a year. You have a publisher forum? Can I have in or is that moot now?

Bill


----------



## JohnNephew (Oct 28, 2006)

Vascant said:
			
		

> Based on the post I seen from the owner of OBS, I would be incline to think that they are not going to change their policy so why debate it?




I agree that OBS is unlikely to change their policy.  The sent out terms, not an offer inviting a counteroffer.  However, there are several reasons that it's worth debating what is going on, whether it is a good thing, and how things could be done differently, and to do so in a public forum.

For one, as a publisher who has decided to decline the new terms of business at OBS, it is in my interests to encourage other publishers to keep their options open and to actively support other sites.  Because of the value of competition for the future of this market, I think it is also in the interests of those publishers and consumers as well.

For another, some of the ideas that are proposed -- for example, suggestions I've made about the extra money being available to the publishers as a credit that they could devote to their own marketing through the PDF vendor (e.g., your extra 5% or 10% builds up in an "account" that can be spent on banner ads that would direct customers specifically to your products on the vendor's site -- generating profit for vendor and publisher); or the idea of switching a wholesale price rather than discount-off-MSRP structure -- may not be of interest to OBS right now, but may be seen and adopted by other market participants, as a competitive way to distinguish themselves from OBS.

After all, the fact that RPGNow offered PDFs *without* DRM quickly forced DTRPG to change their tune quickly from being all-DRM.  (Heck, at the outset the high cost of DRM was one of the justifications for DTRPG taking a much bigger cut than RPGNow.)  If RPGNow wasn't present as a thriving competitor and proof of success without implementing a DRM scheme, DTRPG might have been much slower to respond to consumer demand on this topic (if it ever did), which would have meant slower growth and less money for their own publishers.  It's one thing to say, "We think you should change this policy, which you used a cornerstone of your business plan, on the theory that it will make your customers happier and not hurt you."  It's far more persuasive to say, "Your competitor does things this way and the sky isn't falling and their customers love it, why can't you do it that way too?"  It's a lot harder for a company to brush off feedback of the second variety.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 28, 2006)

Fedifensor said:
			
		

> As an observer, I feel that a 1-day notice that a publisher's online store will be taking a bigger cut of the pie is extremely bad form.  I don't get to see what happens behind the scenes, but it seems like the three largest PDF selling sites just said, "Take it or leave it" to their vendors, and their merger gives them the muscle to make most of them take it...




It's not one-day's notice.  The royalty change doesn't take place for a month.  That is the standard notice required for such changes as indicated in the contract, and is the level of notice wihch has been used in the past.

Objecting to the increase is fair enough; but be aware that full notice has been given.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 28, 2006)

HinterWelt said:
			
		

> What?!?!? I have been signed up with your service for over a year. You have a publisher forum? Can I have in or is that moot now?
> 
> Bill




He's referrig to the RPGNow forum, which is now an OBS forum.


----------



## Mark CMG (Oct 28, 2006)

Morrus said:
			
		

> Objecting to the increase is fair enough




Indeed, and doing so in a respectful and organized manner is a worthwhile way to voice protest over the rate hike.


----------



## FraserRonald (Oct 28, 2006)

Sword's Edge Publishing will be raising its prices on all OneBookStore sites (RPG Now, DTRPG, ENGS, and RPGNet) to compensate for the increased commissions. This means products will be cheaper for purchase at Steve Jackson Games' e23. We really have no choice but to swallow the increase, but I want to help grow alternative sites to OBS in order to ensure that there are alternatives for SEP (and others) in the event of another increase. SEP will be surrendering a portion of our profits (we won't be exclusive with OBS) in order to try to drive sales to alternate sites.

SEP is very small tadpole in the pool, but if the big fish follow a similar approach, we might see some healthy competition in the PDF market, which will benefit the publishers (lower commissions) and the consumer (lower prices).


----------



## Morrus (Oct 28, 2006)

I think I'm gonna hold off on any decisions regarding ENP pricing until I see how things shake out.  I'm optimistic that extra sales will absorb the commission (although we have to make 30% extra sales, having gone from 0% to 30%).  ENP's prices will reflect the percentage difference in overall royalties.  If we increase by more than 30%, the prices may even drop!

So, uh, buy ENP stuff!


----------



## Kesh (Oct 28, 2006)

der_kluge said:
			
		

> If you'd like to register a formal complaint with the FTC (Federal Trade Commission), you can do so here:
> 
> https://rn.ftc.gov/pls/dod/wsolcq$.startup?Z_ORG_CODE=PU01
> 
> ...



 Okay, that strikes me as way too extreme. What basis is there for reporting this to the FTC?


----------



## Mark CMG (Oct 28, 2006)

Morrus said:
			
		

> I'm optimistic that extra sales will absorb the commission





My idea of industry growth doesn't include having any profit from extra sales absorbed by rate increases.  That's a merger scenario that doesn't help me grow in the slightest.  If my profits don't increase, I do not believe a refund will be forthcoming, either.


----------



## jgbrowning (Oct 28, 2006)

Steve DriveThruRPG said:
			
		

> With the RPG download market growing steadily year over year and with it only comprising 11% of the total RPG market, we believe that this is a situation where everyone will be best served with what is essentially a co-operative marketing program focused on expanding the market. If that proves to be wrong then we will have financially ill-served our publisher partners AND ourselves.
> 
> Steve Wieck
> OneBookShelf




I know you're not one to respond to messageboard questions, but I know everyone would like to hear your response to the one below.

*James and Steve*: What is the sites reason for increasing publisher's fees by up to 40% when publishers are already directly responsible for *over 50%* of the site's sales at rpgnow.com? All of the site's publishers are already benefitting the site more than the site is benefiting all it's publishers. This shows that any marketing/advertising money spent would be more efficiently spent by the publishers, not the site, and that the money spent by the publishers would result in increasing the site's profits more than money spent by the site.

Any additional market growth caused by this merger already benefits the site disproportionately under *the old vendor fee scale* under similar direct sales response.

Joseph Browning
Expeditous Retreat Press


----------



## mythusmage (Oct 28, 2006)

Steve Conan Trustrum said:
			
		

> That's where I got lost. OBS will already be drawing more income than any one publisher. The royalty increase has been justified, in part, by the supposed growth of the market to follow that will absorb the lost revenue to publishers. How then does the same arguement not stand against OBS when reversed? The lost revenue certainly strikes against the individual publisher more than it does OBS, who has its fingers in every publisher's pie.




And OBS will be getting increased commissions overall from the increased sales. Under their scheme they would get $3.50 from one $10.00 sale. Under my scheme they would get $4.00 from two $10.00 sales. If more sales means more revenue for the publisher, even with the increased commission; then more sales means more revenue for OBS, even with a lower commission.

True, OBS would also get more revenue with the higher comissions, but lower commissions makes OBS more attractive as a vendor. More publishers, more traffic. More traffic, more sales. More sales, more exposure.

Don't forget, PDF publishing is a young business, it will grow. Revenue will grow with it as more and more people turn to PDFs for their book purchases, and as more and more people turn to home or POD printing. My long term goal here is to make PDF selling and purchasing more appealing to all concerned.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 28, 2006)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> This shows that any marketing/advertising money spent would be more efficiently spent by the publishers, not the site




Technically, no.  It says that in the past, the total money the site has spent has been less effective than the total spent by the publishers.  But until we know what those totals actually are, we cannot speak to relative efficiency.  Unfortunately, we are unlikely to ever see the aggregagte spending by publishers, so we'll probably never see a good measure of the efficiencies.

Spent properly, the site should be able to make use of economies of scale and venues of marketing and advertising unavailable to individual publishers.  The publishers, on the other hand, should be able to be more agile and carefully targetted.  Thus, the optimum brobably lies with some combination of spending by each.


----------



## RangerWickett (Oct 28, 2006)

Morrus said:
			
		

> (although we have to make 30% extra sales, having gone from 0% to 30%).




Actually, since they're taking a 30% cut, we need to increase sales by 42.86% to break even. We're making 7/10 of our previous profit, so we need to sell 10/7 in volume.

I think I would be more comfortable if only two of the stores had merged, instead of all 3. Maybe we should blame too much cyberpunk, but my gut makes me wary of megacorps. OBS certainly isn't an actual megacorp, but they're the big dog now. I know the guys in charge aren't bad people, but I just haven't been convinced yet that reducing competition between sales venues is actually good for the industry.

I'm not opposed to it, but I just haven't made up my mind yet. If I were in a position where I was the sole proprietor of a company, I think I too would be displeased with the sudden change, particularly when coupled with the commission increase. Like someone already said, sure there has been a fair 30-day notification, but during those 30-days some folks might not want to support the company.

I'm going to wait and see if somehow OBS fits into a millenial world-government conspiracy, or if we'll actually double our sales and all find true love in the next few months. I'm hoping for the second.


----------



## jgbrowning (Oct 28, 2006)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Technically, no. It says that in the past, the total money the site has spent has been less effective than the total spent by the publishers. But until we know what those totals actually are, we cannot speak to relative efficiency. Unfortunately, we are unlikely to ever see the aggregagte spending by publishers, so we'll probably never see a good measure of the efficiencies.




True. There is the chance that the advertising spent by the site could be dollar-per-dollar more effective than advertising by the publishers. I'd hesitate to say so given previous information concerning the general disatisfaction with prior site advertising programs.



			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> Thus, the optimum brobably lies with some combination of spending by each.




Indeed. I work to advertise my company and they get a % of my sale because of it, they work to advertise their site and they get a % of every sale because of it and currently the relationship has been a 50/50 one. Perfect.

My concern is I'm not sure why I'm suddenly supposed to provide them an additional 9% of my sales to help fund their advertising when after 4 years of advertising the resulting return rate is still 50/50 site/publisher. Given past performance, I don't think their adversiting choices are going to become more effective just because they're using my money to do it.

joe b.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Oct 29, 2006)

Quick question, and it may have been addressed already in the previous 6 pages, but will my store credits be combined into a single credit?  At least this way, I will get more bang for my buck.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 29, 2006)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> but I just haven't been convinced yet that reducing competition between sales venues is actually good for the industry.



It isn't automatically good for the industry.
But having someone else come in and take away the owner's ability to do what they want with their companies would be quite bad for the industry.

Also, the owners all appear to agree to want to do this.  Thus they expect better returns down the road this way than they expect if they had stayed separate.  If their expectations play out (and by no means is this ever an asumption), then it will be good for the industry, which in the long run will be good for the consumers also.


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 29, 2006)

As an aspiring publisher, I find the news a little troubling. However, I hope the endeavor is successful. If OBS makes a healthy profit, that means a healthier PDF market, which drives the demand for new products, which helps publishers and writers. If sales are not up to to snuff, though, I hope OBS has the good sense to relent to royalty levels at which small publishers were making a decent profit.


----------



## Wolv0rine (Oct 29, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> It isn't automatically good for the industry.
> But having someone else come in and take away the owner's ability to do what they want with their companies would be quite bad for the industry.
> 
> Also, the owners all appear to agree to want to do this.  Thus they expect better returns down the road this way than they expect if they had stayed separate.  If their expectations play out (and by no means is this ever an asumption), then it will be good for the industry, which in the long run will be good for the consumers also.



And (for the purposes of your arguement alone) I refer you back to Microsoft on this issue.  You seem to be unaware that such things can happen, and do happen.  I'm not saying 'The govt needs to jump in here on this' or anything so silly, I'm merely addressing your arguement, which is failing to take this into account.


----------



## rpghost (Oct 29, 2006)

Wolv0rine said:
			
		

> And (for the purposes of your arguement alone) I refer you back to Microsoft on this issue.  You seem to be unaware that such things can happen, and do happen.  I'm not saying 'The govt needs to jump in here on this' or anything so silly, I'm merely addressing your arguement, which is failing to take this into account.




If you want to get all technicall and such... a privatly owned company (which we are) CAN NOT be a monopoly and the government cannot step in to break it up or any such thing. So the FTC or any of those things someone suggested above have no relavence here. 

James


----------



## madelf (Oct 29, 2006)

Morrus said:
			
		

> It's not one-day's notice.  The royalty change doesn't take place for a month.  That is the standard notice required for such changes as indicated in the contract, and is the level of notice wihch has been used in the past.
> 
> Objecting to the increase is fair enough; but be aware that full notice has been given.




No. I don't feel that it was adequate notice.

The contract I signed was with RPGnow. Although I haven't pulled it out to double check, it was my understanding that ANY changes to that contract (not just rate changes) required 30 days notice. I'm also pretty sure that contract didn't include a provision for sticking my products on the DTRPG site. 

I was given a day's notice that my products were going to be appearing on DTRPG. They are there now, and I'm still not sure how I feel about that (rate hike issues aside). I didn't fail to list my stuff on their site out of laziness, I had reasons for choosing not to list there. I was not given enough time to consider whether those reasons were still of importance to me, or of sufficient importance to outweigh the benefit of being with the combined store, yet my products are there. I wasn't given the option to decline in advance of the move. 

If I should decide in the next day or two that I do not want to go with OBS after the 30 day delay on the rate hike, I also cannot simply remove my products from DTRPG while maintaining them on RPGNow until I can choose another outlet and change all my links, etc. I'm forced to have my products on both sites, or neither, until I make other arrangements.

If I had been given 30 days notice prior to these changes, I would have had time to think this over, decide how I wanted to proceed, and could have taken action in an orderly manner _prior to the move_. I wasn't given that opportunity. I think I should have been.

So I think the "one day's notice" accusation is quite appropriate.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 29, 2006)

madelf said:
			
		

> No. I don't feel that it was adequate notice.
> 
> The contract I signed was with RPGnow. Although I haven't pulled it out to double check, it was my understanding that ANY changes to that contract (not just rate changes) required 30 days notice. I'm also pretty sure that contract didn't include a provision for sticking my products on the DTRPG site.
> 
> ...




I can see your point there.  To clarify, I was reply to the person who was talking specifically about the notice given for the rate change.  My post didn't address any other issues.


----------



## Vigilance (Oct 29, 2006)

Wolv0rine said:
			
		

> And (for the purposes of your arguement alone) I refer you back to Microsoft on this issue.  You seem to be unaware that such things can happen, and do happen.  I'm not saying 'The govt needs to jump in here on this' or anything so silly, I'm merely addressing your arguement, which is failing to take this into account.




Talking about this issue in monopoly terms is just silly.

I'll make the point here I made in general.

When I started writing PDFs 4-5 years ago there was one company: RPGnow. In the 4+ years since I've seen the market go from one company, to five (RPGNow, DTRPG, ENGS, e23 and Paizo) and now back down to three (OBS, e23 and Paizo).

This does not equal a monopoly by any definition to me. 

Chuck


----------



## Geoff (Oct 29, 2006)

madelf said:
			
		

> I was given a day's notice that my products were going to be appearing on DTRPG. They are there now, and I'm still not sure how I feel about that (rate hike issues aside). I didn't fail to list my stuff on their site out of laziness, I had reasons for choosing not to list there. I was not given enough time to consider whether those reasons were still of importance to me, or of sufficient importance to outweigh the benefit of being with the combined store, yet my products are there. I wasn't given the option to decline in advance of the move.




I don't know about you, but our contract reads as follows:

_1. GRANT OF LICENSE. In accordance with this Agreement, the Publisher grants MDC a non-exclusive license to sell the submitted Products via the web site known as rpgnow.com and www.rpgshop.com. The Publisher retains title and ownership of the Product._


----------



## madelf (Oct 29, 2006)

Geoff said:
			
		

> I don't know about you, but our contract reads as follows:
> 
> _1. GRANT OF LICENSE. In accordance with this Agreement, the Publisher grants MDC a non-exclusive license to sell the submitted Products via the web site known as rpgnow.com and www.rpgshop.com. The Publisher retains title and ownership of the Product._



Yeah, I'm pretty sure mine does too. I'm not ticked enough to dust it off and call a lawyer, but it does annoy me slightly that they just transferred all my products to another site without giving me time to consider whether I wanted them to (enough that I was compelled to call BS on the idea that they gave full notice of impending changes, anyway).


----------



## Angellis_ater (Oct 29, 2006)

So in essence, RPGNow and thereby OBS is in breach of contract with pretty much EVERYONE? Wow...


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Oct 29, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> This does not equal a monopoly by any definition to me.
> 
> Chuck



The number of companies isn't relevant. Consider the amount of market share held by each of those companies and reconsider your evaluation because ...

... fits the definition of monopoly, for good or bad. No moral value conotation, but purely as a definative meaning: yes, an effective monopoly.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 29, 2006)

Angellis_ater said:
			
		

> So in essence, RPGNow and thereby OBS is in breach of contract with pretty much EVERYONE? Wow...




I wouldn't be so quick to jump to that conclusion.  I'm not a lawyer, but this is the same company.  I'm not aware of the legalities involved with changing a company name, a merger, change of ownership or a number of other possible situations, including this one, and their effects on contracts held by the pervious company.  

I do know that Steve and James paid a bunch of legal fees, which means lawyers were certainly involved.  

But crying out "breach of contract" without really knowing the legalities of the situation is not fair to anyone, much as we all like a bit of internet messageboard drama.


----------



## 2WS-Steve (Oct 29, 2006)

Steve Conan Trustrum said:
			
		

> The number of companies isn't relevant. Consider the amount of market share held by each of those companies and reconsider your evaluation because ...
> 
> ... fits the definition of monopoly, for good or bad.




I must be missing that dictionary then.

Seems that the vast majority of companies can easily sell elsewhere. The companies that most customers recognize can even forego selling via PDF altogether and take only a minor hit.

OBS's only leverage is that it brings more customers to the table than anyone else -- so they're supposed to be criticized for doing a good job?


----------



## madelf (Oct 29, 2006)

Angellis_ater said:
			
		

> So in essence, RPGNow and thereby OBS is in breach of contract with pretty much EVERYONE? Wow...



That's jumping to a conclusion I wouldn't be inclined to embrace without a bit of looking into things. They might be, they might not be. I'm no lawyer, I don't know. It might be perfectly legal for them to do what they've done. My only point is that I don't approve of thier doing it without providing me time to decide how I feel about it (and leaving me time to bow out in advance of the move if that were my choice). I just feel like they rushed the whole thing by me, and I'm left spinning around going, "Huh? Bu...what  now?" It's annoying, but possibly 100% legal.


----------



## Vigilance (Oct 29, 2006)

Steve Conan Trustrum said:
			
		

> The number of companies isn't relevant. Consider the amount of market share held by each of those companies and reconsider your evaluation because ...
> 
> ... fits the definition of monopoly, for good or bad. No moral value conotation, but purely as a definative meaning: yes, an effective monopoly.




Except that ANY RPG website with a lot of traffic could do what ENWorld did tomorrow.

If GR or Mongoose started selling their PDFs on their own site and then said "oh yeah and anyone else who wants to sell their PDFs here is welcome", *boom* we've gone from 1, to 5 to 3 and back to 4.

And since being exclusive at OBS allows us ALL to sell on our own sites, I think what you'll likely see is DOZONS of sites selling PDFs that NEVER have before. 

Eventually, I predict several of those sites will reach a critical mass where they combine stores, or a high traffic site simply opens the doors for others to sell there (like Green Ronin or Mongoose).

What you seem to not understand about monopolies is that it has nothing to do with the level of competition.

It's how easy competition can spring up, in other words, how fertile is the soil.

We are by NO means in a non-competitive enviornment in the PDF distribution arena. 

Chuck


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Oct 29, 2006)

2WS-Steve said:
			
		

> I must be missing that dictionary then.
> 
> Seems that the vast majority of companies can easily sell elsewhere. The companies that most customers recognize can even forego selling via PDF altogether and take only a minor hit.



Part of the definition of monopoly is having a large enough share of the market to be able to directly exert pressures on said market that cause factual shifts in how that market operates and exists. So, if a company has enough market share that its decisions set the standard in the industry, that's a monopoly. In this specific instance, none of the remaining companies have a noteworthy enough market presence to be a viable option to compete against the newly merged company--companies such as Paizo and e23 don't have even remotely the same market presence and selling power. The fact that this is so means you're essentially doing business with the new company, or not at all or you have to look into radically new ways outside of the existing service model to get product to your customers.

You may believe otherwise, but the new company's market share DOES constitute an effective monopoly because of the breadth of influence they now have on the market and the total absence of similar influence available to the remaining competition. The big problem with how some people are reacting to the use of the word is they aren't using it as an appropriate statement of the facts of the matter but rather believe the term contains "evil" conotations of purpose as a part of its definition--a monopoly is just the unavoidable end results of the merger and not some diabolical plan on the part of James and Steve.



> OBS's only leverage is that it brings more customers to the table than anyone else -- so they're supposed to be criticized for doing a good job?



This is most certainly NOT their only leverage. Their market share allows them to define market trends and can even effectively destroy aspects of the industry, were they to decide to do so. Their access to customers is so much higher than any other PDF storefront that were they to (by way of example) decide not to sell anything with the d20 logo on it, the d20 PDF market would virtually disappear. Even companies only selling such products through their own company sites would notice a loss of sales because the destruction of the core market would cause customers to shift for alternatives.

We're also already seeing how the merger is affecting prices because there are a number of companies (including one of the largest PDF companies in the industry, Ronin Arts) who are already talking price shifts as a result of the merger. If OBS' influence in the market wasn't so grand, the price shifts wouldn't be necessary because the other storefronts could be used to create a balance in the shifting profit margins. Because the majority of sales in the PDF industry come from the companies merging into the OBS, however, restructuring is practically inevitable, be the restructuring in budgeting/production planning or product costing (unless a company is willing to go exclusive, which takes out your point about there being other companies offering their services, which then returns us to the point of an existing effective monopoly.)

There also remains absolutely no proof that the OBS will bring any additional customers. That is purely speculation at this point. Companies that already had dealings with all the affected companies aren't suddenly gaining access to more people. FOr there to be this influx of customers that you speak of, OBS will have to do something more than just consolidate their customer databases. And, to their credit, James and Steve have spoken about how they have such plans, but until we see actual results (along with data on how any results aren't just a matter of the market evolving on its own, which we already know is happening), those plans are unproven speculation and theories. So, while they have ideas as to what they want to do with their increased slice of the pie, their asking for that slice before actually being able to provide anything substantial in return. This is, I think you'll find, the crux of where the disagreement regarding the royalty changes rests.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Oct 29, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Except that ANY RPG website with a lot of traffic could do what ENWorld did tomorrow.



You may want to note that "what ENWorld did" wasn't especially noteworthy so far as the overall market was concerned. If you talk to most publishers they didn't make nearly as much from ENWorld as they did on either RPGNow or Drivethru. ENWorld may have become third on the market but they were WAY behind the leading two when it came to product sales and throughput. Most publishers who spoke up on the matter noted that ENWorld's storefront had no impact on their sales on the primary two sites. The biggest reason as to why this is is the same reason why e23 and Paizo will find it difficult to compete on OBS' level: the top companies are so entrenched in their market shares that penetrating them is an expensive uphill battle that has everything working against the new guy.

I believe many publishers will agree with me when I say that ENWorld's most useful and influential interaction with the PDF market following the opening of its own storefront remained what it had been prior to that storefront's opening: offering a consolidated location for publishers to access their customer base and not as a place to buy or sell PDFs. Which is why Misfit Studios never forked out the sign-up fee to join them--the stories I'd heard about insignificant sales and logistical problems were too frequent and from too many respected companies for us to risk coming on board and not doing so didn't see a drop in our sales at all.


> If GR or Mongoose started selling their PDFs on their own site and then said "oh yeah and anyone else who wants to sell their PDFs here is welcome", *boom* we've gone from 1, to 5 to 3 and back to 4.
> 
> And since being exclusive at OBS allows us ALL to sell on our own sites, I think what you'll likely see is DOZONS of sites selling PDFs that NEVER have before.
> 
> ...



I think the thing you continue to not understand is that people aren't using the word "competition" to say "yeah, there's someone else out there selling PDFs as well, no matter how ineffective or small their market share." The term is being used to illustrate that there's noone left out there operating at the level of OBS to make them worry or push themselves in many regards. Yes, monopolies very much DO have a lot to do with the level of competition remaining in the market because the remaining alternatives are not *viable *substitutes.

What you're saying is that because some guy operating out of his basement has written his own OS and is selling it off his web site that he's offering Microsoft competition in the OS market. What everyone else is saying is that because this guy's ability to affect the market is so minimal that he isn't actually competing with Microsoft at all.

e23, Paizo, etc. are indeed competitors in the sense that yes, they exist in the same market. Are they competitors in the sense that the amount of PDF business they do results in sales even remotely comparable to those that went through the systems of OBS' parent companies? Absolutely not. Not even close. They're essentially second thoughts that were so insignificant in the larger scale of things that most of the market didn't even take the time to utilize them. This may change now (MAY, mind, as it's not a given), but such a state of actual competition does not currently exist. So far as the PDF rpg market is effectively and practically concerned, OBS' parent companies were the people to be doing business with, full stop period, if you wanted to be in the PDF market. Everything else was just a bit of extra icing on RPGNow's and Drivethru's cake.


----------



## Vigilance (Oct 29, 2006)

Steve Conan Trustrum said:
			
		

> I think the thing you continue to not understand is that people aren't using the word "competition" to say "yeah, there's someone else out there selling PDFs as well, no matter how ineffective or small their market share." The term is being used to illustrate that there's noone left out there operating at the level of OBS to make them worry or push themselves in many regards. Yes, monopolies very much DO have a lot to do with the level of competition remaining in the market because the remaining alternatives are not *viable *substitutes.




OBS has less market share than RPGNow did when DTRPG started up.

There's nothing in the market right now to convince me that the same thing could not be done again.

Chuck


----------



## Bacris (Oct 30, 2006)

Actually, the contract does allow OBS to take over as the entity: 

13. TRANSFER OF RIGHTS. This Agreement shall be binding on any successors of the parties. Neither party shall have the right to assign its interests in this Agreement to any other party, unless the prior written consent of the other party is obtained.

OBS is the successor of MDC, thereby making the transition from MDC to OBS legit.

That being said, they may be in breach of contract as far as I can see after reviewing the contract for placing the products on DTRPG's storefront, as the contract stipulates that MDC (and thereby OBS) can post the products at RPGNow.com and RPGShop.com - no stipulation is given that I can see that allows that to transfer to an additional storefront in the case of a change of ownership.

So as far as I can see, people can have legitimate reason to be upset that their products are at DTRPG without their consent, as it is not covered in the agreement... but I'm not a lawyer, so I may have missed a stipulation   So I suppose if you want to file a grievance or legal dispute, head on over to Wisconson


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Oct 30, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> OBS has less market share than RPGNow did when DTRPG started up.
> 
> There's nothing in the market right now to convince me that the same thing could not be done again.



You mean other than the fact that all the leading storefronts other than those involved with the merger haven't yet been able to do so despite most having ties to successful gaming companies behind them? EDIT: not to mention EnWorld's failure to do so despite the leg up their d20 presence with customers gave them? Yeah, no proof of a problem in surmounting market shares there ...


----------



## 2WS-Steve (Oct 30, 2006)

Steve Conan Trustrum said:
			
		

> Part of the definition of monopoly is having a large enough share of the market to be able to directly exert pressures on said market that cause factual shifts in how that market operates and exists...
> <trimmed for brevity>




Do you have any citations for this definition? I can think of few clauses more vague than  "cause factual shifts in how that market operates and exists". As a single customer _I cause_ factual shifts in how the PDF market operates and exists.

Here's some that I found:



> A monopoly power is defined as the ability of a business to control a price within its relevant product market or its geographic market or to exclude a competitor from doing business within its relevant product market or geographic market. It is only necessary to prove the business had the "power" to raise prices or exclude competitors. The plaintiff does not need to prove that prices were actually raised or that competitors were actually excluded from the market.
> 
> Today, a general definition of a monopoly is where nearly all of one product type or service is owned by one person or group of people within a community or area. Thereby, the sole control of this product or service is given to one party to the elimination of all others within the marketplace. To determine whether purchasing a competitor's business or creating an agreement with a competitor may result in a monopoly within your market place, please seek the advice of an attorney.



 -- FreeAdvice Website

or



> Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service: “Monopoly frequently … arises from government support or from collusive agreements among individuals” (Milton Friedman).



 -- Answers.com 

Roughlydrafted.com has a simlar discussion regarding iTunes and whether or not it has a monopoly:



> A monopoly does not refer to the popularity of a product, but rather the control of a market. For example, GM does not have a monopoly in selling the Cadillac Escalade. GM wouldn’t even have a ‘monopoly in SUVs’ if the Escalade claimed 80% of that market. It would have monopoly only if consumers could not drive around without buying an Escalade from GM, and no other auto makers could offer competing cars for sale at market prices.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...




At best this talk about monopoly sounds like speculation that would never hold up in court.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Oct 30, 2006)

2WS-Steve said:
			
		

> Do you have any citations for this definition?



Check the 1999 case against Microsoft. Yes, there were actual competitors, but Microsoft's influence was such that it was ruled to be a monopoly.



> At best this talk about monopoly sounds like speculation that would never hold up in court.



I imagine Microsoft's lawyers thought the same.

Let's be clear here about something: I'm not saying that James and Steve are up to anything underhanded. Both have been great for the PDF market and have done more to grow it than any other two people I can think of. I've more experience dealing with James, and he's been fantastic in every respect, even those where I found myself wholly and loudly opposed to his position. The guy is a true gent in my books. However, that doesn't change the fact that the merger creates a focus of market share that creates a monopoly. This is not subjective but an objective result of the merger. Do I think James and STeve will purposely use this fact to underhanded purposes? No. Do I, as someoen operating a business in this industry realize that something can still happen as a result? Is there the very real possibility that OBS could affect pricing and market dynamics in the RPG industry were it to attempt doing so? Absolutely.

I thought my great uncle was a fantastic guy, and so did my grandfather. Indeed, my grandfather trusted him so much that he gave great uncle John, his accountant, signing rights for many of his businesses. Great uncle John remained beloved by most of the family right up until he stole a few million from my grandfather. The moral? Just because someone hasn't done something to earn one's distrust doesn't mean that a businessman is doing something wrong by admitting that there is more to just trust in protecting one's own business when a vulnerability or concern is exposed. The possibility for influence via an effective monopoly remains true and must be considered in business models even if it never bears fruit. That's not a reflection on James or Steve, or what they've built and are now building--it's a matter of publishers showing concern for what they have themselves built.


----------



## Vigilance (Oct 30, 2006)

Steve Conan Trustrum said:
			
		

> You mean other than the fact that all the leading storefronts other than those involved with the merger haven't yet been able to do so despite most having ties to successful gaming companies behind them? EDIT: not to mention EnWorld's failure to do so despite the leg up their d20 presence with customers gave them? Yeah, no proof of a problem in surmounting market shares there ...




What we're talking about is the ability for someone to successfully compete.

Note that this does not mean anyone should be able to fire up a geocities site and then whine about monopolies when they dont compete successfully with OBS.

DTRPG provided something NO OTHER site was providing at the time: they had exclusive companies, very popular ones, including WW, Malhavoc, and AEG. 

That edge accounted for their enhanced ability to compete.

The definition of monopoly is not "competition will be hard because there's already a successful business providing the same service as me".

Again, tell me how it would be harder for a competitor to start a successful site now than it was when DTRPG opened its site. 

RPGNow had more of a market share THEN than OBS does NOW. 

DTRPG brought a lot to the table then. And there's nothing stopping another site from doing so now. 

And you haven't proven that there is.

You keep using a lot of vague semantics and throwing a lot of scary words around but you have not been able to answer my one simple question, despite several sarcastic replies.

I'll ask it again: 

How is it less possible for a website to successfully compete with OBS now than it was when DTRPG opened its site to compete with RPGNow? 

RPGNow was more of a monopoly THEN than OBS is now. 

Why could a website not do what DTRPG did today? 

Chuck


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Oct 30, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> RPGNow was more of a monopoly THEN than OBS is now.
> 
> Why could a website not do what DTRPG did today?



I don't think you quite realize what's going on here. There is no more "RPGNow" as a company entity. There is no more "DriveThru." These are now just operational titles for OBS, titles that will disappear after the transition period.

OBS is now both companies together. OBS as a single entity has more market share than RPGNow or Drivethru EVER had because OBS has united those shares under a single company. Your statement above is false, as are the points that you've derived from it.


----------



## Vigilance (Oct 30, 2006)

Steve Conan Trustrum said:
			
		

> I don't think you quite realize what's going on here. There is no more "RPGNow" as a company entity. There is no more "DriveThru." These are now just operational titles for OBS, titles that will disappear after the transition period.
> 
> OBS is now both companies together. OBS as a single entity has more market share than RPGNow or Drivethru EVER had because OBS has united those shares under a single company. Your statement above is false, as are the points that you've derived from it.




Dude. 

RPGNow was the only site selling PDFs when DTRPG was founded.

Edit: I'll say this slowly for the reading impaired.

RPGNow at one time controlled the entire market.

100% of it.

But still competition formed, in the name of DTRPG.

Now that DTRPG and RPGNow have merged, they control 90% or so of the market.

90% is less than 100%.

Competition formed then.

Please explain why things are different now.

Chuck


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Oct 30, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Dude.
> 
> RPGNow was the only site selling PDFs when DTRPG was founded.
> 
> ...



Sorry, I misunderstood part of what you were saying, but ...

Simply put? The vacuum DriveThru filled then no longer exists and there's currently no similar vacuum to act in its place. DriveThru was able to take its position because the newness of the market itself created instability that DriveThru latched onto using the angle of stepping away from the small "amateur" aspects of the industry. That instability no longer exists. EnWorld is a clear example of how even a company that already has a solid rep and the potential to spike into a large market share simply can't do so without a similar edge that isn't currently to be found in the existing market. If someone came along now and tried what DriveThru did then, I seriously doubt the more stable market of today would allow for it (which is a big part of why everyone else is so far behind RPGNow and Drivethru in market shares and why EnWorld never really showed throughput comparable to either RPGNow or Drivethru despite the customer base and tie-ins of its existing memberships and direct marketing potential.)

What you're basically saying is that the opportunity to introduce a new OS NOW is under the exact same conditions as they were when Microsoft and Apple first formed. That is, obviously, as untrue of the computer OS market as it is for the rpg PDF industry.


----------



## 2WS-Steve (Oct 30, 2006)

Steve Conan Trustrum said:
			
		

> Check the 1999 case against Microsoft. Yes, there were actual competitors, but Microsoft's influence was such that it was ruled to be a monopoly.
> 
> I imagine Microsoft's lawyers thought the same.




If you examine the case I think you'll discover that you're not offering such a good example after all. Again, I'll offer a citation from the article at Roughlydrafted.com:



> Remember that Microsoft wasn't judged a monopoly based on its market share, but rather due to an inability for others to enter the PC operating system market due to the Microsoft price paradox. Windows wasn’t sold, it was bundled.
> 
> Even today, Microsoft reports that 80% of its sales come from licensing agreements with hardware vendors, rather than retail sales to consumers. The market isn’t choosing to buy Windows over competing operating systems; even Linux is struggling to maintain a scrap of the PC installed base, and Linux is available for free.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Oct 30, 2006)

2WS-Steve said:
			
		

> If you examine the case I think you'll discover that you're not offering such a good example after all. Again, I'll offer a citation from the article at



Except for one important point: I was proving how the term monopoly sat outside your stated definition. I wasn't saying it was solely related to the point of market shares alone. I can go back through my posts and point out where I've also said that the influence OBS will have allows for the possibility of affecting prices, if you want something that directly fits with that *exact *instance.

And you may also want to check sections 18, 33 and 34 of the Findings of Fact regarding the Microsoft ruling. It specifically deals with how Microsoft's market shares affected the outcome and supported a monopoly ruling.


----------



## 2WS-Steve (Oct 30, 2006)

Steve Conan Trustrum said:
			
		

> Except for one important point: I was proving how the term monopoly sat outside your stated definition. I wasn't saying it was solely related to the point of market shares alone. I can go back through my posts and point out where I've also said that the influence OBS will have allows for the possibility of affecting prices, if you want something that directly fits with that *exact *instance.
> 
> And you may also want to check sections 18, 33 and 34 of the Findings of Fact regarding the Microsoft ruling. It specifically deals with how Microsoft's market shares affected the outcome and supported a monopoly ruling.




Do you have a link?


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Oct 30, 2006)

2WS-Steve said:
			
		

> Do you have a link?



This site has organized them for ease of reference:

http://www.albion.com/microsoft/


----------



## 2WS-Steve (Oct 30, 2006)

Steve Conan Trustrum said:
			
		

> This site has organized them for ease of reference:
> 
> http://www.albion.com/microsoft/





So these would be the relevant sections?



> 18. Currently there are no products, nor are there likely to be any in the near future, that a significant percentage of consumers world-wide could substitute for Intel-compatible PC operating systems without incurring substantial costs. Furthermore, no firm that does not currently market Intel-compatible PC operating systems could start doing so in a way that would, within a reasonably short period of time, present a significant percentage of consumers with a viable alternative to existing Intel-compatible PC operating systems. It follows that, if one firm controlled the licensing of all Intel-compatible PC operating systems world-wide, it could set the price of a license substantially above that which would be charged in a competitive market and leave the price there for a significant period of time without losing so many customers as to make the action unprofitable. Therefore, in determining the level of Microsoft's market power, the relevant market is the licensing of all Intel-compatible PC operating systems world-wide.




and



> 33. Microsoft enjoys so much power in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems that if it wished to exercise this power solely in terms of price, it could charge a price for Windows substantially above that which could be charged in a competitive market. Moreover, it could do so for a significant period of time without losing an unacceptable amount of business to competitors. In other words, Microsoft enjoys monopoly power in the relevant market.
> 
> 34. Viewed together, three main facts indicate that Microsoft enjoys monopoly power. First, Microsoft's share of the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems is extremely large and stable. Second, Microsoft's dominant market share is protected by a high barrier to entry. Third, and largely as a result of that barrier, Microsoft's customers lack a commercially viable alternative to Windows.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Oct 30, 2006)

2WS-Steve said:
			
		

> So these would be the relevant sections?



Yes. Not what was ruled against them, but information taken into account that supported the ruling that was reached. In other words, they couldn't have gotten the ruling if they didn't have supporting proof. Part of the supporting proof was first showing how Microsoft had unfair influence in the market, influence that squeezed out fair compeition, and how that would create the possibility of price manipulation.


----------



## 2WS-Steve (Oct 30, 2006)

Steve Conan Trustrum said:
			
		

> Yes. Not what was ruled against them, but information taken into account that supported the ruling that was reached. In other words, they couldn't have gotten the ruling if they didn't have supporting proof. Part of the supporting proof was first showing how Microsoft had unfair influence in the market, influence that squeezed out fair compeition, and how that would create the possibility of price manipulation.




The issue here is the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions. Having a large portion of the market share is used to support that something might be a monopoly, but it's not sufficient for something to be a monopoly -- you also need things like other companies having a barrier to entry, or commercially viable alternatives, as mentioned in 34.

But between the print trade, the success that companies have selling off their own sites, and how easy it is to set up some new store, it seems like there's practically no barrier to entry.

Moreover, isn't this the case where the judge got overturned in a 7-0 ruling and criticized by the justices making the ruling?

I think there's a clearly analogous case (and more analogous than comparing OBS to a bundled operating system) out there already in iTunes -- and I suspect that OBS has a fervent desire to become the iTunes of comic books RPGs, and other geek culture. If you can come up with some evidence that iTunes is monopolistic I think you'd have a better case.


----------



## Vigilance (Oct 30, 2006)

Steve Conan Trustrum said:
			
		

> Sorry, I misunderstood part of what you were saying, but ...
> 
> Simply put? The vacuum DriveThru filled then no longer exists and there's currently no similar vacuum to act in its place. DriveThru was able to take its position because the newness of the market itself created instability that DriveThru latched onto using the angle of stepping away from the small "amateur" aspects of the industry. That instability no longer exists. EnWorld is a clear example of how even a company that already has a solid rep and the potential to spike into a large market share simply can't do so without a similar edge that isn't currently to be found in the existing market. If someone came along now and tried what DriveThru did then, I seriously doubt the more stable market of today would allow for it (which is a big part of why everyone else is so far behind RPGNow and Drivethru in market shares and why EnWorld never really showed throughput comparable to either RPGNow or Drivethru despite the customer base and tie-ins of its existing memberships and direct marketing potential.)
> 
> What you're basically saying is that the opportunity to introduce a new OS NOW is under the exact same conditions as they were when Microsoft and Apple first formed. That is, obviously, as untrue of the computer OS market as it is for the rpg PDF industry.




No, there isnt the possibility to introduce a new OS now because there's not a very competitive environment in that field.

I do not however, think that's the case in the situation we're currently discussing. 

I think what allowed DTRPG to succeed to the level it did was exclusive publishers. They offered something no one else did, not even RPGNow.

In other words, they simply competed at a high level.

RPGNow offers a fantastic service and they offer it well. No one said competing with them would be easy. But someone (DTRPG) came up with an idea and I don't think there's any artificial force in the PDF marketplace right now to stop SOMEONE ELSE from offering something no one else does.

Maybe it's lower prices, a slicker interface or something no one has ever thought of. 

My point is, there's no ARTIFICIAL forces to hinder competition, which is my definition of a monopoly.

There are NATURAL forces hindering competition. 

Those natural forces are that there's a company in the market (OBS) that does a damn fine 
job of delivering PDFs. 

That's my take anyway. 

Chuck


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Oct 30, 2006)

2WS-Steve said:
			
		

> The issue here is the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions. Having a large portion of the market share is used to support that something might be a monopoly, but it's not sufficient for something to be a monopoly -- you also need things like other companies having a barrier to entry, or commercially viable alternatives, as mentioned in 34.



The market share IS a barrier to competative entry. The standing of e23 and Paizo, and the resulting inability to comparatively compete that hit EnWorld's store, are proof of that.



> But between the print trade, the success that companies have selling off their own sites, and how easy it is to set up some new store, it seems like there's practically no barrier to entry.



There is a lot more to competing at that level than setting up a store. I could get a buddy of mien to program a store for me, but that doesn't mean it would be a competitor.



> Moreover, isn't this the case where the judge got overturned in a 7-0 ruling and criticized by the justices making the ruling?



The ruling that Microsoft had to be broken up was overturned. Microsoft was still found to be acting under anti-competition and the same appeals court that refused to break up the company still maintained that Microsoft acted as a monopoly.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Oct 30, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> No, there isnt the possibility to introduce a new OS now because there's not a very competitive environment in that field.
> 
> I do not however, think that's the case in the situation we're currently discussing.
> 
> ...



I think we're just going to have to disagree that we're viewing the situation from different angles or we'll just keep going around and around because I disagree with some of your points even here, which is just going to keep us going. This would be a great discussion to continue having over a few beers and a game of pool, but I don't see it otherwise going anywhere on here for either of us, no?


----------



## madelf (Oct 30, 2006)

Bacris said:
			
		

> Actually, the contract does allow OBS to take over as the entity:
> 
> 13. TRANSFER OF RIGHTS. This Agreement shall be binding on any successors of the parties. Neither party shall have the right to assign its interests in this Agreement to any other party, unless the prior written consent of the other party is obtained.
> 
> OBS is the successor of MDC, thereby making the transition from MDC to OBS legit.



Uhmm.... read the second sentence in that clause again. 'Cause it sure sounds to me like they were supposed to have my permission in order to "assign its interests in this Agreement to any other party". 

OBS is _not_ MDC. OBS has been presented as a new jointly held company formed by the owners of MDC and DTRPG (or whatever company runs it, rather), not just a continuation or subsidiary of MDC. It's not even just a transfer of the existing MDC company to a new owner (so far as I can tell). It looks to me like a transfer of "interests" from two existing companies to a new single company. Among them an interest in my products, assigned without my permission . Doesn't sound quite right to me.



> So I suppose if you want to file a grievance or legal dispute, head on over to Wisconson



Soo not worth my time.   

Nothing more than a minor annoyance. (And an additional tick on the list of things that make me shake my head and wonder about some people)


----------



## Paradigm (Oct 30, 2006)

madelf said:
			
		

> Yeah, I'm pretty sure mine does too. I'm not ticked enough to dust it off and call a lawyer, but it does annoy me slightly that they just transferred all my products to another site without giving me time to consider whether I wanted them to (enough that I was compelled to call BS on the idea that they gave full notice of impending changes, anyway).




I am not a lawyer, but my business education indicates that OBS is the same entity as MDC because OBS was formed by a merger that includes MDC. If this were not the case, nobody would buy or merge with anybody ever.


----------



## Paradigm (Oct 30, 2006)

There is a concept/assumption running through this thread (and other threads) that this merger will mean higher prices on PDFs. That conclusion is at best hasty and at worst, harmful to all involved.

I haven't spoken to every PDF publisher out there, but I can tell you that Paradigm Concepts has no intention of increasing prices and I hardly think we are unique in that aspect. Unless there is no increase in sales from the merger, AND there is no movement to other sites with lower commission, AND we don't realized significant sales when our own storefront goes live, we may reexamine that decision, but I find the above to be unlikely.


----------



## direpress (Oct 30, 2006)

Paradigm said:
			
		

> There is a concept/assumption running through this thread (and other threads) that this merger will mean higher prices on PDFs. That conclusion is at best hasty and at worst, harmful to all involved.



Seconded.  Dire Press will not be increasing prices.  We've done the math and its just really hard and makes our heads hurt.  Why can't it be easy like calculus?


----------



## Yair (Oct 30, 2006)

Paradigm said:
			
		

> There is a concept/assumption running through this thread (and other threads) that this merger will mean higher prices on PDFs. That conclusion is at best hasty and at worst, harmful to all involved.



In the short term, the increased rates (not the merger itself, just the rates) will result in some publishers (Phil Reeds, for one) increasing their prices - and others (like Paradign) not. That's not an assumption or concept, that's (at this point) pretty much a fact.

In the longer term, it all depends on the degree of optimism. If the sales volume incresaes sufficiently (by over 40% for ENP, for example), the publishers will make the same profits at the same wages and prices so there is no cause to alarm. If the sales don't increase to that extent, then the increased rates will result in a) increased price, and/or b) lower profits (hardly possible in this market), and/or c) cheaper wages for employees such as artists - that's such a simple matter of economics that even I can make this prediction. All these changes spell out one thing - the consumers buy less for the same price, so the new rates stagnate the growth of the market.

Since I'm pessimistic regarding OBS' ability to expand the market to such an extent, I think prices will increase (or quality decrease). I also think the rates will be lowered in due time, as those running OBS will be wise enough to do what's best for them and the market. I think they're overcharging, and will benefit more by charging less in the future.

The merger itself has so far, as far as I can see, resulted in the withdrawl of one company (Atlas Games) from the sites and led to the realization in others that they need to diversify their channels of profits so as to be less dependant on any one vendor. It has not, as of itself, resulted in higher prices.

Of course I'm not a publisher, or a buisnessman, I could very well be wrong. I hope I'll be proven wrong, and the market explodes and everyone becomes millioners.


----------



## seasong (Oct 30, 2006)

Full Disclosure: I run e23. I am a soulless corporate drone. I want a cut of your fans' money. On the other hand, I'm also a fan - I've bought books from my competitors and I try to support my favorite publishers, wherever they may sell.

Still...

OBS is a monopoly? I suspect Amazon's ebook and e-doc program will be surprised to hear that. Granted, their ebook selection is pretty lame, and their publisher interaction can only be described as glacial for anyone in a niche... but OBS is _not_ a monopoly. Not by market share, not by competitive advantage.

And while they're _bigger_ than e23 (and some others), e23 doesn't really feel squeezed by OBS - we sell to a different audience, and so far, nothing OBS has done seems likely to take that audience from us.

And the fact is, a decent percentage of OBS' audience isn't OBS' audience. It's direct marketing from the publishers - and the publishers decide where to send that audience. Among the _many_ alternative places to send your portion of those sales, there is e23, Lulu's download program, Amazon, and numerous other sites.

Publishers have _reasonable_ choices. Customers have _reasonable_ choices. It's not a monopoly.


----------



## madelf (Oct 30, 2006)

Paradigm said:
			
		

> I am not a lawyer, but my business education indicates that OBS is the same entity as MDC because OBS was formed by a merger that includes MDC. If this were not the case, nobody would buy or merge with anybody ever.



You're probably 100% right.

I still think it was rude (legal or not) to make the transfer and put product up on a new site without giving a decent amount of time for people to consider the situation and decide how they want to proceed. But I'll get over it.


----------



## Bardsandsages (Oct 30, 2006)

*What is a monopoly?*



> In standard economic theory (see analysis above), a monopoly will sell a lower quantity of goods at a higher price than firms would in a purely competitive market.




I don't see OBS deliberately limiting the quantity of goods.  In fact, the new store will have more products that the individual stores had.  



> Primary characteristics of a monopoly
> Single Sellers
> A pure monopoly is an industry in which a single firm is the sole producer of a good or the sole provider of a service. This is usually caused by barriers to entry.
> No Close Substitutes
> ...




Singer Seller:  This is obviously not the case.  e23, Paizo, Lulu, publisher storefronts, DBB, and other outlets do exist.

No Close Substitute:  Again, there are several other means for PDFs to be marketed.  While argueably OBS will have the best option, it is by no means the only.  

Price Maker:  While some are lamenting that the merger will force them to raise prices, these prices will not become fixed across all sales avenues.  In fact, there is no legitimate reason to raise prices, as it will drive consumers to other outlets.  In a monopoly, the company monopolizing the market will often artificially undercut competition in order to eliminate it.  Since the publishers set the prices, this is not possible.

Blocked Entry:  There is nothing to stop someone else from forming their own sales outlet.  Irate publishers could easily form a collective to compete against OBS.


----------



## FATDRAGONGAMES (Oct 30, 2006)

Fat Dragon Games will _not_ be raising prices on our existing product catalog. After reviewing the OBS merger for the last couple of days and discussing it privately with several other publishers, we feel that the merger will generate more sales over the long term that will make up for any slight decrease in our profits. Our PDFs are still generating a higher profit margin than our physical products in distribution due to the higher discounts distributers and consolidators demand, so we see no reason that the rate increase on PDFs should be passed along to our customers.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Oct 30, 2006)

seasong said:
			
		

> OBS is a monopoly? I suspect Amazon's ebook and e-doc program will be surprised to hear that. Granted, their ebook selection is pretty lame, and their publisher interaction can only be described as glacial for anyone in a niche... but OBS is _not_ a monopoly. Not by market share, not by competitive advantage.



Amazon's ebook storefront is DEFINATELY behind so far as rpg market share is concerned. I imagine it's not even a blip on a typical e-rpg customer's radar.



> And while they're _bigger_ than e23 (and some others), e23 doesn't really feel squeezed by OBS - we sell to a different audience, and so far, nothing OBS has done seems likely to take that audience from us.



But you're only looking at this in one direction: how do the publishers that sell with you think e23 compares to RPGNow and Drivethru? e23 itself doesn't have to feel squeezed for the opinion of publishers such as myself to be truthful when we say e23 isn't competatively comparable to the OBS parent companies, granting OBS a far greater market advantage than e23.



> And the fact is, a decent percentage of OBS' audience isn't OBS' audience. It's direct marketing from the publishers - and the publishers decide where to send that audience. Among the _many_ alternative places to send your portion of those sales, there is e23, Lulu's download program, Amazon, and numerous other sites.



But ultimately it's where the customers want to go that's going to set the pace. Customers have repeatedly stated they prefer to get all their shopping done under one account, and that account is most likely to go to the storefront that offers the biggest, most varied selection. None of the ones you've mentioned here come close to OBS.



> Publishers have _reasonable_ choices. Customers have _reasonable_ choices. It's not a monopoly.



I'd disagree on what the definition of reasonable you're using means. Shifting all of Misfit Studios' PDF business to one of the alternatives you've listed certainly wouldn't be reasonable because none of those options have comparable benefits to offer my company. Not even close. If I shifted all my business to Paizo or e23, for example, my business would drop dramatically despite shifting all my direct marketing focus to that storefront. However I'd choose to rationalize such a decision as reasonable, the realities of the market would soon prove that it wasn't a reasonable decision at all.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Oct 30, 2006)

Bardsandsages said:
			
		

> No Close Substitute:  Again, there are several other means for PDFs to be marketed.  While argueably OBS will have the best option, it is by no means the only.



As i pointed out with the very real monopoly ruling against Microsoft, I think you're underestimating this fact. The very important part of this term is the word "Close." The two top storefronts have merged and what was likely the third or fourth has become a mirror site for the former two. The remaining companies are WAY behind in their ability to act as a substitute. In other words, they're not close. This creates a possibility of artificially affecting the market.

For example, if OBS decided that it was no longer going to offer M&M Superlink PDFs, it's very likely based on OBS combined market share that most PDF publishers wouldn't bother with such products any more because the remaining substitutes don't offer the amount of sales to make such productions profitable. Similarly, imagine what would happen if OBS went out of business next year--the loss of a top-heavy concentration of publisher focus would prove as damaging to the PDF industry as was Osseum's collapse to so many beloved print companies, only the affect would be much broader. Obviously these are extreme examples, but they do illustrate why consolidating the top of the market into a single focus can be dangerous for the lack of close substitution to immediately pick up the slack.


----------



## Natai (Oct 30, 2006)

*Other consequences*

As a new vendor that setup accounts through both RPGNow and ENGS (ENWorld Gamestore), I have yet to release my first product (The projected release date is January 07). I was a little disappointed when I realized that half of the $200 I shelled out to create my vendor accounts was wasted, but it's a fair trade if I can get more sales with the new setup.

Is there going to be a new site for Onebookshelf at some point in the near future? There was a huge difference between the vendor account sites of ENGS and RPGNow. RPGNow's was far more difficult to use and I loved ENGS by comparison. Now all of that seems to be gone and replaced by RPGNow's version. There were also features in ENGS that are not available with RPGNow, like preorder options, sample PDF options, and pretty much the entire method for creating a new product. With ENGS I could more or less have everything setup for my account and products before any of them were ready for release, not so under RPGNow. Is there a possibility of getting the RPGNow site or another upcoming site to be setup more like ENGS for vendors? If so, I am all for it.

I also noticed that, while my company was listed under ENGS it is not under the new merged RPGNow.
 :\ 
Will this merger lead to more options ofr vendors, like other merchandise such as prints, or greater POD options like hardcover? My current plan is to have my book printed by Replica (the POD branch of Baker & Taylor) and then send my books to RPGNow, but I would much rather just have everything handled by the new setup.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Oct 30, 2006)

Natai said:
			
		

> Is there going to be a new site for Onebookshelf at some point in the near future?



They are working on a unified site, but it's months down the road from being launched.


----------



## Bardsandsages (Oct 30, 2006)

Steve Conan Trustrum said:
			
		

> As i pointed out with the very real monopoly ruling against Microsoft, I think you're underestimating this fact. The very important part of this term is the word "Close." The two top storefronts have merged and what was likely the third or fourth has become a mirror site for the former two. The remaining companies are WAY behind in their ability to act as a substitute. In other words, they're not close. This creates a possibility of artificially affecting the market.




Just because the competition does things poorly, does not mean that OBS should drag it's heels and wait for them to catch up.  Close does not mean close in service and quality.  It means close in format.  The fact is there ARE other sources that do the exact same thing PBS does:  sell RPG pdfs.  That is the bottom line.  If I decided to open up a new hobby store in my area that was the size of a department store and offered an arcade, pizza shop, and even game rentals, would I be obligated to say "gee, maybe I shouldn't do all this because the other shop in the area can't afford to compete with me?  Guess I'll just open up a little closet like he has to be fair."


----------



## Paradigm (Oct 30, 2006)

Yair said:
			
		

> In the short term, the increased rates (not the merger itself, just the rates) will result in some publishers (Phil Reeds, for one) increasing their prices - and others (like Paradign) not. That's not an assumption or concept, that's (at this point) pretty much a fact.




It is a reasonable assumption that _*some*_ publishers will raise prices because some said they will. 
It is also not an unreasonable assumption that _*some*_ wanted to raise prices and are now given an excuse.  (This is pure speculation unrelated to any name mentioned anywhere by anyone)
It is also possible that some folks first instinct to raise prices might me tempered by consideration. I did the math, PCI needs a 16.2% increase in sales to see no impact on our revenue, I think that is doable. A raise in prices will harm the competetive position of the company that does so, unless their PDFs were already underpriced.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 30, 2006)

Bardsandsages said:
			
		

> Just because the competition does things poorly, does not mean that OBS should drag it's heels and wait for them to catch up.



Exactly.

Also, the Microsoft stuff was so loaded with political baggage as to be virtually meaningless for a case like this.  (Not left wing / right wing politics, but more a "stack the deck for the business in my district" politics.  Not to derail with that massive issue, but suffice to say that Microsoft is a terribly poor comparison regardless of which side of that case you prefer)


----------



## jaerdaph (Oct 30, 2006)

So, speaking as a PDF consumer, how does this merger benefit me? 

A week ago, I could buy PDFs at the EN World game store and get 3% cash back as an EN World supporter (and substantial discounts from 5% to 10% from certain participating publishers). Two months ago I could buy a PDF at RPGNow and get 5% back (DrivethruRPG too). So while I'm glad to hear many publishers won't have to raise their prices, the price of your products in many cases have still gone up from my perspective.

I'm also concerned about exclusivity agreements. What happens if one of your customers decides they no longer what to do business with the PDF distributor (for whatever reason) you've signed with exclusively? What are their options to buy your product then? (Please note this is a hypothetical and no judgement on anyone on my part.) Is exclusivity worth the risk if you could potentially lose customers?


----------



## seasong (Oct 30, 2006)

Steve Conan Trustrum said:
			
		

> But you're only looking at this in one direction: how do the publishers that sell with you think e23 compares to RPGNow and Drivethru?



Currently, a fair number of them are approaching me and asking about e23's terms (20% commission, non-exclusive, by the way).

With that said, OBS isn't competing with you. OBS is competing with me. If I'm not feeling squeezed, how do they have a monopoly? Regardless of _theoretical_ market advantage - if that was the case, don't you think I would have been just as worried about RPGNow, DriveThruRPG, and ENWorld Game Store?

Publishers follow the customers. But publishers also _direct_ the customers. The market pressure is in your hands, not OBS' hands. OBS just has the advantage of being monolithic - it can exert all of its strength in one direction, and a fair number of publishers will tow the line.

But so can Dell. And plenty of people _don't_ tow the line for Dell, and plenty of publishers _won't_ tow the line for OBS.



			
				Steve Conan Trustrum said:
			
		

> But ultimately it's where the customers want to go that's going to set the pace. Customers have repeatedly stated they prefer to get all their shopping done under one account, and that account is most likely to go to the storefront that offers the biggest, most varied selection. None of the ones you've mentioned here come close to OBS.



Reading through the various threads here, I've seen a much wider array of comments, including "Which publishers sell from their own site?" and "Four or five sites, doesn't matter, I'm a few clicks and a bookmark away from being a customer."

That may be the vocal minority. So might your experience.

It's telling, I think, that EN World members have shopped from all of these sites that just merged, and a number of them have shopped from e23. I know that I, personally, have bought products from all of those mentioned except Lulu, and a few that haven't been mentioned. I've never felt a strong desire to have one-stop shopping. Stores that are not malls succeed in the brick-and-mortar world, and arguably there is _more_ effort involved in going to a brick-and-mortar.

And something else to consider is: can they _find you_ on OBS? At last count, we were talking about 400 publishers and 9,000 products.



			
				Steve Conan Trustrum said:
			
		

> I'd disagree on what the definition of reasonable you're using means. Shifting all of Misfit Studios' PDF business to one of the alternatives you've listed certainly wouldn't be reasonable because none of those options have comparable benefits to offer my company. Not even close. If I shifted all my business to Paizo or e23, for example, my business would drop dramatically despite shifting all my direct marketing focus to that storefront. However I'd choose to rationalize such a decision as reasonable, the realities of the market would soon prove that it wasn't a reasonable decision at all.



Here, we agree, sort of. I wouldn't suggest anyone drop OBS entirely and shift to e23 (or any single vendor). Well, okay, my greedy, blackened little soul would love it if you did. But I'm not going to suggest it - of the _more than two_ choices available, that isn't one of the reasonable ones.

Here's an example.

Le Baptiste Games (fictional, I hope) currently makes 200 sales per year at OBS, and all of their products are $10. They match e23's audience pretty well, and based on my current estimates of relative market share, they could conceivably make about 20 sales per year at e23.

(This varies by publisher - some publishers make more sales per year at e23 than they do elsewhere, but only a few, and some make less than the tenth implied.)

Le Baptiste Games works to promote their sales, and they used to point at RPGNow. An estimated 35% of their sales on RPGNow were a result of publisher-directed purchases. Here are some sample choices:

Exclusive contract with OBS and direct their traffic to OBS:
* (200 sales) $2,000 x 70% = $1,400.

Non-exclusive contract with OBS and e23, and direct traffic to e23:
* (130 sales) $1,300 x 65% = $845.
* (70 + 20 sales) $900 x 80% = $720.
* total $1,565.

Exclusive to e23 and direct their traffic to e23:
* (70 + 20 sales) $900 x 80% = $720 this year.
* If enough publishers did this, the numbers _will_ change. _You_ have the customer power, remember.

Now, the nice thing about non-exclusive contracts is that e23 isn't the only one out there. Paizo might be able to add a few more sales. Amazon (if you can get through their "customer service") could add quite a few more. Lulu some more. And so on.

But even just having _two_ sites, _any_ two sites, it's worth your while to have a product on both, and to direct traffic to the one that makes you more money per sale.


----------



## Bardsandsages (Oct 30, 2006)

jaerdaph said:
			
		

> I'm also concerned about exclusivity agreements. What happens if one of your customers decides they no longer what to do business with the PDF distributor (for whatever reason) you've signed with exclusively? What are their options to buy your product then? (Please note this is a hypothetical and no judgement on anyone on my part.) Is exclusivity worth the risk if you could potentially lose customers?




If someone is so adamant about not wanting to deal with OBS, they can always buy the print versions of my products (which I still sell through Amazon and my own storefront at Lulu.).  Print products are not included under the agreement.  Honestly, I think this is a non-issue.  

The fact is, you can't base business decisions on "what if..." scenarios that, if they actually came to pass, would account for a miniscule percentage of your market.  I think once the dust settles, folks who want to buy PDFs will shop at OBS, and people who don't buy PDFs will continue to not buy PDFs.  If a handful of people suddenly decide to stop shopping at OBS, oh well.  I'm working with the assumption that OBS will go out and attract new customers to the PDF market, not just steal cannibalize customers from other outlets.  

So I can worry about losing maybe 1-2% of my existing market base (if that, as not one customer has expressed any worry to us) in exchange for a potential increase in my market base of much more than that.


----------



## seasong (Oct 30, 2006)

I fixed some math in my post above, sorry.


----------



## NathanHill (Oct 31, 2006)

I'm a very small press publisher, though I do have several products in the pipeline.

The merger is still something I'm watching with caution. I don't like the raise in prices, but I'm certainly willing to see what happens. I was exclusive with RPGNow, although I was considering diversifying before. Now, seeing e23's 20% royalty rate, I've got a little more gumption to go non-exclusive. And I do plan to point customers directly to e23's site. I will keep my products on OBS, but I have to be serious... RPGNow's marketing tools never really did anything for me.


Sales - sales are something I don't do much. I already price my stuff low enough that a sale seems kind of a waste.
Mailings - who wants to get spammed from publishers trying to get you to buy their latest product? Never used it.
MOTDs, banners, etc. - Fine, I guess, but the problem is that these things are disconnected from actually playing the product.
Coupons - I like coupons, although I'm still wary to use them except in a few situations (product upgrades, new versions, etc.)
Reviews - by far, the best feature that RPGNow had going for it... a decent little review system to rate products and give a flavor. Still, I'd rather there was a way to be able to demo the games.

All in all, I'm not looking for much. I think the biggest problem I see from the merger is the continuation of bad "rpg industry" mentality. Someone gets a little success, so they turn around and try to be the next big thing. They want to take it to the next level, reach a greater audience, and make even more money. And more often than not, things fall apart.

In reality, success happens on a smaller scale in the hobby. The companies that are smart are the ones who plod slowly along with carefully designed games and smart decisions. (No movie deals, no big licenses.) Atlas Games is one such company that fits that criteria, and so I think it is something sad that OBS' "big plans" have turned them off.

I think the next big advertising model has to be tied to actual play - not banner and print ads.

But, of course, I'm different, and I wish OBS the best of luck in this change.


----------



## Urizen (Oct 31, 2006)

NathanHill said:
			
		

> Sales - sales are something I don't do much. I already price my stuff low enough that a sale seems kind of a waste.
> Mailings - who wants to get spammed from publishers trying to get you to buy their latest product? Never used it.
> MOTDs, banners, etc. - Fine, I guess, but the problem is that these things are disconnected from actually playing the product.
> Coupons - I like coupons, although I'm still wary to use them except in a few situations (product upgrades, new versions, etc.)
> ...




So you think Banners should be connected to Playing the product? I'm not sure I follow you, can you elaborate please?


----------



## Roudi (Oct 31, 2006)

NathanHill said:
			
		

> I'd rather there was a way to be able to demo the games.



That's easy: build a demo PDF, or use RPGNow's demo maker.  Didn't you know about these options?


----------



## Orcus (Oct 31, 2006)

Hi everyone. 

Just thought I would chuck in my two cents. I maybe have a slightly different approach to viewing this issue.

First off, I am right there with Monte on this. I see this as amazing.

I aslo want to say that Necro has no intention of raising any prices on PDFs. Our price decisions are our price decisions. We try to decide what is fair and that is that. 

But back to my main point 

As you may remember, Necro has the fine distinction of releasing the very first OGL/d20 product of all time--the Wizard's Amulet. That product was a PDF. That's right, the very first product in all of d20 history was a PDF. As a result, I have a fond spot in my heart for PDFs. We have always had great PDF support for our products. But, until recently, because Bill and I do not run Necro full time, we have not really viewed pdf distribution as a good primary distribution method for us. I always wanted to do more in the way of primary PDFs, but it just wasnt something that worked for us. I know that Necro is differnt from a lot of publishers for that reason. So my concerns and issues are different from a company that is part of the merge that has for some time relied on PDFs as a primary means of distribution. I understand and acknowledge that. I know that there are lots of different publishers with lots of different takes here. Heck, you can see it just by reading the threads. So I am not presuming to speak for anyone but me.

However, I see the creation of OBS as the beginning of the true growth of PDFs as a more viable distribution method. Sure, you could say "hey Clark it has been here all along". I know it has. And I have watched. But I think, from my standpoint, OBS has made a significant change. I truly see the merger as focusing on future growth. The type I hoped would one day happen for PDFs. Now you have one company with all the staff working on a common goal of site improvement, delivery improvement, etc. Previously I viewed PDF distribution as a way to reach some fans who couldnt get print product. Now I am excited to contemplate PDF as a means of primary delivery. I have to say that I didnt see that as a workable model for us before. So much so, that I actually have a massive product in the works that will be PDF released first and exclusively and will only be published in print on the very back end (after several installments of PDFs). I wouldnt have been comfortable with that prior to the merger. 

So what does this do for current publishers? It grow the PDF market, which is a boon for all publishers. It brings PDF more into the main of commercial viability for primary delivery. Frankly, it has convinced publishers like me to dip deeper into PDFs as a delivery medium. That can only be a good thing, in my view. 

Call me crazy, but I also see this merger as being one step closer to fulfilling the vision of open gaming. 

What? What did I just say? Yeah, it might sound crazy but I mean in. Open Gaming is awesome because anyone who can make a pdf can get involved. It is the desk top revolution to gaming. I love it. (I know I am preaching to the choir here  ). The prior problem with Open Gaming truly fulfilling its vision is that there has always been a split between pdf publishers to some degree and print publishers. In my view, the rise of the commercial viability of PDF delivery brings those publishers together. 

For instance, I understand there will be bundling features. For isntance, lets say a pdf publisher made a product that used some open game content from our Tome of Horrors. You can advertise and bundle together your product to mine. Since Tome is one of the best selling d20 books of all time, I imagine other publishers can see the value of that. 

Sorry if this has been a long post and maybe doesnt make a ton of sense. But it is late and I am really tired.

To sum up:

As a publisher, I love this merger. 

As a fan of open gaming, I love the possibilities a stronger pdf delivery mechanism brings to my view of realizing the dream of people and companies of all types coming together to make game products.

As a fan of pdfs, I am thrilled to see OBS finally be FOR ME (and this is no disrespect to others who found other ways) what I wanted in a pdf delivery mechanism. 

PDFs for me are not just an added convenience, they are now--with OBS--a viable primary delivery medium. And I am geeked about that. I think this does nothing but provide huge possibilities for pdf publishing which I strongly believe is the wave of the future for gaming.

As a side note, I happen to know the people involved and I know they are great guys and love gaming as much as I do. 

Clark


----------



## Orcus (Oct 31, 2006)

By the way, my post is not intended in any way to disparage the views of those who say there will be a financial pinch for them. Different companies have different views and I respect those concerns. Obviously, we all have bottom lines. I, though, see the future growth of pdfs as the boon to offset that. Only time will tell. Maybe I am just a big optimist 

Clark


----------



## NathanHill (Oct 31, 2006)

Urizen said:
			
		

> So you think Banners should be connected to Playing the product? I'm not sure I follow you, can you elaborate please?






			
				Roudi said:
			
		

> That's easy: build a demo PDF, or use RPGNow's demo maker. Didn't you know about these options?




Actually, maybe I didn't make myself clear.

I'm using demo as a verb there. I already have a downloadable preview or stripped down version of the product. I mean... that I would like some sort of sweet option where a potential customer checks out the game, then clicks on a button that says "Play!" Then, I am shot an email that says - "Hey, someone wants a five minute demo of your game." And I run it for them, over the internet. Or a gamer in their area gets their info, and they can get together and play a session.

I've never bought a game because of a banner. And I am seriously tired of buying games because of their cover text or what they "seem" like. I want to play it first, then figure out if it really is something fun. This is the secret of many of the "indie" games out there and why they do so well at Gencon. And I think it is the point of the roleplaying hobby too. 

Does that make sense?


----------



## Christoph the Magus (Oct 31, 2006)

Orcus said:
			
		

> Hi everyone.
> 
> First off, I am right there with Monte on this. I see this as amazing.




I apologize if I am misremembering, but I seem to recall that Necro put their products on Drive Thru begrudgingly, at high prices, and made comments to the effect of "I'd prefer people to buy the hardback, I'm a print publisher.  The PDF is only there for people that can't get the hardback."   

Maybe I'm wrong, or maybe you've changed your mind, but I'm surprised to hear that Necro cares one whit about the PDF market.


----------



## Bardsandsages (Oct 31, 2006)

NathanHill said:
			
		

> Sales - sales are something I don't do much. I already price my stuff low enough that a sale seems kind of a waste.
> Mailings - who wants to get spammed from publishers trying to get you to buy their latest product? Never used it.
> MOTDs, banners, etc. - Fine, I guess, but the problem is that these things are disconnected from actually playing the product.
> Coupons - I like coupons, although I'm still wary to use them except in a few situations (product upgrades, new versions, etc.)
> Reviews - by far, the best feature that RPGNow had going for it... a decent little review system to rate products and give a flavor. Still, I'd rather there was a way to be able to demo the games.




Sales:  WalMart has the lowest prices of most department stores, yet they still have sales.  Why?  Because sales get people in the door.  It is the same thing with an e-store.  Why do you think Amazon has sales?  It motivates people to buy now instead of waiting.  Also, a sale on product Y gets people looking at your other products, increasing sale of backlist items.  Sales are one of the most basic marketing tools.  

Mailings:  What SPAM?  RPGnow is an OPT-IN list!  That was always the beauty of it, these are customers who WANT to know about your new products!  Customers actually select if they want to get e-mails from vendors.  

MOTD/BANNERS:  Such are never about direct sales.  Again, this is a marketing method to raise awareness.  On average, a person needs to see or hear something 7 times before they will remember it.  Banners and MOTD remind people of your product.  While it may not lead to a sale today, three months from now when someone says "You know, I want to run a completely new campaign, something more exotic.  Hey, I remember something about a jungle setting called Neiyar..."  That is where banner advertising is important.  

As far as demos of your game, that isn't really something an online store can do for you.  What I've done with Neiyar in the pass is offer free copies of the book to GMs who will run demos at various conventions.  The core book includes a full module that assumes the players are non-natives shipwreched on the island, so it's ideal for people who aren't familiar with the setting.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Oct 31, 2006)

I'll be honest...

As long as they don't cut me hard enough that I can't afford another bottle of Wild Turkey, I really won't care.

It sounded bad at first, and now that there's been some explanation, I'm not worried.

--EDIT--
I'm in a nasty mood, no need to take it out on someone.

WHERE'S MY DAMN BOOZE???


----------



## Henry (Oct 31, 2006)

Christoph the Magus said:
			
		

> Maybe I'm wrong, or maybe you've changed your mind, but I'm surprised to hear that Necro cares one whit about the PDF market.




I'm not Clark, of course, but:



> However, I see the creation of OBS as the beginning of the true growth of PDFs as a more viable distribution method... I actually have a massive product in the works that will be PDF released first and exclusively and will only be published in print on the very back end (after several installments of PDFs). I wouldnt have been comfortable with that prior to the merger.




...tends to explain this change of thinking to me. If Necromancer Inc. sees the PDF market as finally starting to come into its own, it's more of a profitable venture than a loss leader.


----------



## Roudi (Oct 31, 2006)

NathanHill said:
			
		

> Does that make sense?



It makes sense, but it's awfully idyllic and unfeasable.

Besides, have you ever worked in customer service?  I'm sure you've at least some experience, to suggest that particular idea, but if not... well, dealing with a lot of people in a somewhat live environment can be very draining.  You will get customers who are very interested in trying your product.  You will also get idiots who have no desire at all to try anything you have to offer and simply want to annoy you.  You will get customers who have no idea what they are doing, no matter how well you explain it to them.  You will get customers whose only purpose is to complain to you about anything they can.  Deal with enough of them in a day, and I think you will be regretting your demo model.

Besides, this "live demo" model you propose is already feasible.  Just provide a form of contact with your product description and set up an IRC chat room (or some other form of chat).  Or, as you mention, arrange a meet with the customer.  If you really think that is a superior form of marketing, then don't wait for OBS to implement it for you.  You have the resources to do it yourself right now!  If you do so, and make it successful, maybe that will convince OBS to incorporate features to encourage that kind of marketing.  But they will only do so if someone shows them it can work.  So, stop complaining about how OBS doesn't do things your way, and *do things your way.*


----------



## NathanHill (Oct 31, 2006)

Bardsandsages said:
			
		

> Bardsandsages wrote good stuff here.




Your comments are cool, but I simply have a different perspective on my game design/publishing. (And note the I.) OBS will probably not introduce features that fit with such a minority type of approach to the hobby.    The point is.. the merger is not going to really help me. I'm interested in writing games that are fun to play and playing them with other people. Increasing the presence and distribution of PDFs is not a central issue in that framework. It certainly may not hurt what I am interested in doing, but I don't see it really benefiting what I do.

Peace!


----------



## Orcus (Oct 31, 2006)

Henry, your answer to Christoph is essentially correct.

We didnt grudgingly join DTRPG. We joined with enthusiasm, but we didnt have high hopes of it as a medium for product delivery. As he stated, my view was that it would mostly help those fans who couldnt get the print books. That was just my view of what the business model would address. 

Dont think that means I dont love PDFs and havent been waiting for the day when I saw a means to consider pdfs as a viable primary product strategy. We started out with pdfs with Wizards Amulet. And now that OBS is around, I think primary pdf is now a viable product strategy from publishers that previously have been print publishers. Which is a good thing for everyone.

When we joined up with DTRPG I saw a fragmented pdf market from a business standpoint. No clear unified voice. I saw different companies kind of going in different directions. I saw duplication of effort. I saw a fragmented purchaser base. I also saw an accounting headache in dealing with putting the various books on various sites and tracking payments to us and thus to authors etc. I also clearly saw that pdf-only or pdf-primary was not a solid product plan for Necro for various reasons. I think that has now changed.

Lets take a little design detour for a minute so you can understand what i mean. The PDF only publishers have done a great job, but the market has been conceededly limited. You just dont move the same numbers of a pdf as a print product. Now look at the print publishers. Sure, many of them distribute their books as pdfs. But those products were all (well, i cant say all since i havent seen them all, but certainly the vast majority) designed as print products first with pdfs as an added bonus. Most pdf products are just a print product delivered in a different form--pdf. 

With OBS, I think there is now a viable delivery mechanism that can exploit the benefits of the pdf medium. 

Now OBS has focused the business model, it has unified (not totally  ) the customer base. It has solved the accounting headaches for publishers like me, it has increased the potential customer base, it is no longer duplicating effort and going in different directions which seemed to be aimed at addressing certain niches rather than developing as a mainstream means of delivering product. It allows for more focused advertising to grow the customer base. I might be a total geek, but I am absolutely out of my mind excited about this. because I have always seen and loved the potential of PDF products. I just hadnt really seen the market that had the growth potential I wanted to be a part of. Now I do.

What I mean by all this is that I, as a print publisher, am now working on a product that will be PDF first. And by that I dont mean Monte's "release the pdf of the print product a bit ahead of time" strategy (which was genius, by the way).  I mean the pdf will be its own product, designed specifically as a pdf. I will eventually produce a print product, but the two will be designed differently. Because you use a pdf differently. Perhaps this is bold, but I intend to product a product that is SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED not just to be a print product but to be used as a pdf. You dont get that in a print product. And you dont get that in a pdf of a product that is designed for print. 

In other words, I see the formation of OBS as allowing print publishers to consider pdf primary products. That is a HUGE step into what I consider to be the future of our game and the way materials will be delivered to us for D&D.

Clark


----------



## Christoph the Magus (Oct 31, 2006)

Orcus said:
			
		

> Henry, your answer to Christoph is essentially correct.
> 
> We didnt grudgingly join DTRPG. We joined with enthusiasm, but we didnt have high hopes of it as a medium for product delivery. As he stated, my view was that it would mostly help those fans who couldnt get the print books. That was just my view of what the business model would address.
> 
> ...




Thanks for replying, Clark.  Your explanation makes sense to me.  If other print focused publishers share your views it's possible that the PDF market might rival the sales fo print products someday-which I think is a good thing.

Christoph


----------



## froggie (Oct 31, 2006)

*Necro and pdfs*

I agree w/ my esteemed demon buddy...I was much more begrudging the pdf thing as I prefer owning and selling real books...then I got an email from a guy in Iraq, and I changed my mind.


----------



## Treebore (Oct 31, 2006)

From the consumer standpoint PDF's still aren't as conveninet or easy to read as print. So until pdf's are as easy on my eyes, and as easy to carry around as a print book, don't expect them to compete with print.

The main reason I buy is to be able to print stuff. So map type products are my main reason to buy, so I can easily print them. Or in the case of Mother of All Treasure Tables, easier to print out the descriptions rather than hand copy or scan and then print.

So for me, if print publishers want to sell more pdf's to me, then you guys need to either give me a serious discount coupon on the pdf when I buy the print, or lower the pdf prices across the board.

The only way to expand the pdf market is to make it so cheap compared to print that computer owners have to try them out. Only a handful of print companies, at least in the RPG business, are doing that.

I've noticed that WOTC hasn't been happy with their sales for their full priced pdf versions of their books. I guess the consumer base isn't as stupid as they hoped, or that they aren't very interested in getting pdf sales to be successful.

If people really want pdf's to take off quit thinking they compete with print at the same, or even close, price points. Most of us are smart enough to know that pdf is way cheaper for you guys to make and sell than a print book. No printing costs, no physical storage issues. Way cheaper. So charge way less than print. 

By keeping them so close in price you print guys are forcing the competition. So if you don't want to have them compete, stop it. If you don't want to have pdf's undercut your print, then offer a discount on the pdf price to those who bought the print. That way you get the print sale, plus a little more off of the pdf. Otherwise you are keeping your smarter consumers at the "either/or" level of buying. Its up to you print guys to change that dynamic.


----------



## jezter6 (Nov 1, 2006)

Some of you will probably lose a breath or possibly even have a heart attack hearing this from me (so if you're prone to that stuff, AND I've offended you before with my comments, please sit down, keep a glass of water and an asprin handy, and read with open eyes).

That said, here's my response to Treebore:

For those companies that ARE primarily print (or as close to 50/50 print/pdf), I agree with what you are saying for the most part. Why buy a pdf for $39 when you can get dead tree for the same price. I often feel PDFs should be cheaper given the higher margin (at least before OBS) when cutting out distributors and printing costs.

However, for those that are mostly PDF, they have to charge those prices because the market doesn't really get enough to make good cash money out of the business because distribution numbers are so small. When you're talking only getting 100-200 sales per product, and you still have to pay full price for things like art, layout, and writing (I mean, the artist and writers shouldn't get stiffed because the product doesn't sell...or should they??).

If you have $250 in art costs, $100 in writing costs, and another $200 in layout costs, you need to makes $550 just to break even. I'm being EXTREMELY light on those costs I would imagine. That means you need to sell about $850 in product before the OBS commission. Assuming 150 sales, the product has to be at least $5.67 to break even. Now, for costs as low as $550, I'm betting the product is probably less than 64 pages in length. Probably less than or around 20 pages. That's 28 cents per page, which is extremely high, considering that a WotC full color glossy snazzy book at 200 some pages is only about 19 cents per page. You're paying quite a bit more, and the poor publisher is really only making out around even.

Of course, if this were e23, they'd only have to make up about $687 in sales, and be able to price out at $4.58 to break even on similar sales. Also lowers per page pricing by about 6 cents/page. (Some of you don't believe in the cost per page model, but I do.)

Either way, IMHO, $4.58 or $5.67, both are way too darn much for such a small product, and the publisher is still only breaking even.

I expect prices to rise, little guys to fold up and go home, and guys like Phil and Gareth to do exactly what they need to do to survive and put food on the table. I don't blame them, but I'll do what every good citizen does and vote...with my wallet.


----------



## direpress (Nov 1, 2006)

Treebore said:
			
		

> From the consumer standpoint PDF's still aren't as conveninet or easy to read as print. So until pdf's are as easy on my eyes, and as easy to carry around as a print book, don't expect them to compete with print.



i'll offer that from some consumer standpoints, they are.  i can carry a 5 lb. laptop to the game with the d20 SRD and every PDF i own on it, or most of my gaming bookshelf.  guess which i opt for?  i can type a keyword into the search field and find what i'm looking for in five seconds, or flip through the index (if there is one).  guess which i opt for?

usw.  convenience is a personal issue.


----------



## Urizen (Nov 1, 2006)

Treebore said:
			
		

> If people really want pdf's to take off quit thinking they compete with print at the same, or even close, price points. Most of us are smart enough to know that pdf is way cheaper for you guys to make and sell than a print book. No printing costs, no physical storage issues. Way cheaper. So charge way less than print.




Hiya Treebore.

I'm interested in seeing what you consider to be fair  prices as far as PDFs are concerned.

Do you feel you should be charged by how many pages are in the product? Is Artwork a consideration? What about layout?


----------



## Master01 (Nov 1, 2006)

Orcus said:
			
		

> That's right, the very first product in all of d20 history was a PDF.


----------



## Arnwyn (Nov 1, 2006)

Treebore said:
			
		

> From the consumer standpoint PDF's still aren't as conveninet or easy to read as print. So until pdf's are as easy on my eyes, and as easy to carry around as a print book, don't expect them to compete with print.



Word.

(And, no, a $1000 piece of equipment required to make PDFs "convenient" is _not_ convenient.)


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Nov 1, 2006)

direpress said:
			
		

> i'll offer that from some consumer standpoints, they are.  i can carry a 5 lb. laptop to the game with the d20 SRD and every PDF i own on it, or most of my gaming bookshelf.  guess which i opt for?  i can type a keyword into the search field and find what i'm looking for in five seconds, or flip through the index (if there is one).  guess which i opt for?
> 
> usw.  convenience is a personal issue.




PREACH, Brother. PREACH!!!

PDF's make it easier for me to put adventures together, easier to modify and make changes to things. I make notes, mark up the maps, etc. 

I recently bought Expedition to Castle Ravenloft and immediately wished that it was a PDF product not because it wasnt good, but because its physically a nice product, so writing in it was no-no. Post it notes dont cut it for me anymore. If it was a PDF i could print out the parts that I want and not have to worry about messing up a print out. I've said this before RPG's are a utility for me and are intended to be used. I like nice production values as well as the next guy (For example: Ptolus was worth every penny and I'm probably going to shell out for the PDF's as well, while on the flip side I wish that I had just bought the PDF of Rappan Athuk Reloaded instead of the hardcopy, because in the end the production values of that set wasnt that impressive, but the utility of the actual product is very good) but like a said the use of a thing and how I as a DM get to maximize my use of it is paramount to some need to have a pretty tactile product (with a few exceptions of course).


----------



## Yair (Nov 1, 2006)

ShinHakkaider said:
			
		

> PREACH, Brother. PREACH!!!



I really like the pdf format for adventures. The ability to print out the content selectively, edit it in photoshop or whatever, and copy-paste it is really far more useful than having a shiny think new book. For rulebooks, however -especially thick rulebooks that will see heavy use, like the PH - I prefer the hardcover. It's easier to read, more fun to have and hold, and more easy to transfer around the table.

When technology will reach the level when a screen-pad will be available with the contrast, resolution, and lack of luminance of paper, and at a price I can afford, I might be amicable to abandoning books in favor of digital media completely. Until then, I prefer books for basically anything but adventures. (Although I still purchase lots of pdfs to get the content cheaper, or for small products - I'm talking about what I'd prefer at the same price, printing costs included.)


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Nov 1, 2006)

Yair said:
			
		

> I really like the pdf format for adventures. The ability to print out the content selectively, edit it in photoshop or whatever, and copy-paste it is really far more useful than having a shiny think new book. For rulebooks, however -especially thick rulebooks that will see heavy use, like the PH - I prefer the hardcover. It's easier to read, more fun to have and hold, and more easy to transfer around the table.
> 
> When technology will reach the level when a screen-pad will be available with the contrast, resolution, and lack of luminance of paper, and at a price I can afford, I might be amicable to abandoning books in favor of digital media completely. Until then, I prefer books for basically anything but adventures. (Although I still purchase lots of pdfs to get the content cheaper, or for small products - I'm talking about what I'd prefer at the same price, printing costs included.)




Green Ronin, just produced a Pocket version of their M&M rulebook sans the GM section. WOTC recently included a paperback PHB in their Player's Kit. If that paperback PHB was the size of the pocket guide, I'd agree with you. I like having something that I could just beat the crap out of and not worry if onne of my players spill soda all over the book. I like the fact that I can whip out the pocket guide or my PDF print out and work on the train on the way to a game or on the way home from work with relative ease. I hope I didnt come across as someone who hates hardcopies, I just want them to be convienient to use and right now the ability to print what I want or cut and paste rules into a house rule document is just easier for me to do with PDF's.


Note: I also acknowledge that I have a decent laser printer at home with the intent of buying a color laser within the year. So for me printing out PDF's isnt an issue as opposed to someone who doesnt have my setup at home. 

I agree with you about the adventures tho, PDF adventures are 16 types of awesome.


----------



## Orcus (Nov 2, 2006)

I'm thinking of providing double pdfs--ones that exactly match the layout of the book and then a second printer friendly one. Obviously, I am not going to go back and redo old products, but it is something to keep in mind for future products.

Clark


----------



## Orcus (Nov 2, 2006)

And this shift in my thinking is due-100%--to the emergence of OBS and what I view now as a viable product delivery stream that didnt exist quite the same way before.

Clark


----------



## Treebore (Nov 2, 2006)

I apparently need to clear up what I said a bit, my comments were at those who do print versions. Those who are strictly pdf I can understand a higher price, at least up to a point.


----------



## Paradigm (Nov 2, 2006)

Orcus said:
			
		

> I'm thinking of providing double pdfs--ones that exactly match the layout of the book and then a second printer friendly one. Obviously, I am not going to go back and redo old products, but it is something to keep in mind for future products.
> 
> Clark




That is exactly how we do it. Printer friendly is great because layout for print has lots of things that are not purely informative.


----------



## Yair (Nov 2, 2006)

Orcus said:
			
		

> I'm thinking of providing double pdfs--ones that exactly match the layout of the book and then a second printer friendly one. Obviously, I am not going to go back and redo old products, but it is something to keep in mind for future products.



I find that printer-friendly variants are also boring-and-crude-layout variants, or at least are too often. I personally almost always print out the screen version. I'd suggest making sure that the print-only version is still handsome and fun, just without the more ink-intensive parts and cutting down on colored backgrounds. I think moden pdfs allow one to actiavte or deactivate layers, so it's possible to customize the appearnace; that would be ideal.

Just saying.

Yair


----------



## philreed (Nov 2, 2006)

Yair said:
			
		

> I think moden pdfs allow one to actiavte or deactivate layers, so it's possible to customize the appearnace; that would be ideal.




The problem with that, at this time, is that you eliminate a portion of the market that does not (or cannot) run a PDF reader capable of handling the feature.


----------



## sjmiller (Nov 2, 2006)

Orcus said:
			
		

> I'm thinking of providing double pdfs--ones that exactly match the layout of the book and then a second printer friendly one. Obviously, I am not going to go back and redo old products, but it is something to keep in mind for future products.



Hey Clark, how about getting DTRPG/RPGNow/OBS to fix the files you currently have on their site(s)?  I've been trying for almost a year to get them to upgrade the Wilderland's Players Guide to a version that is printable.  The current one, to put it bluntly, is useless.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Nov 3, 2006)

Yair said:
			
		

> I find that printer-friendly variants are also boring-and-crude-layout variants, or at least are too often. I personally almost always print out the screen version. I'd suggest making sure that the print-only version is still handsome and fun, just without the more ink-intensive parts and cutting down on colored backgrounds.



Except that, in most cases, "prettying up" the print version is in contradiction of its purpose. If someone doesn't care about ink and just wants what looks good, no matter how much toner is used, they print the full version. The print friendly version is specifically designed to chop out all that to make sure just the bare bones prints to make the result functional while not eating toner. Sure, the PF version should still have a clean, attractive layout, fonts, etc., but going much beyond that and you're muddying the purpose of having such a version.


> I think moden pdfs allow one to actiavte or deactivate layers, so it's possible to customize the appearnace; that would be ideal.



At this point, considering such end users to be the market majority would not be wise. Many people print from offices, which means you'll still find a lot of versions of Acrobat that don't support layers in common use. Certain niche products, such as maps, may find layers useful but they still run into end-client problems. Doing an entire PDF manuscript with layers as an assumed tool can easily result in lost sales and disgruntled customers.


----------

