A new PDF/Print publishing paradigm

[catsclaw227]

First let me state that I am NOT a publisher, but rather a purchaser of many RPG books and even the PDF version of the same book.

With the number of errors that we are seeing from publishers, as well as playtesting "flaws" in some systems, I am starting to wonder if the philosophy of releaseing as PDF, letting the product get edited and hacked by the users and then printing the "cleaned" version is starting to look like the better way to do things.

I see Green Ronin doing this already (I think the True20 line has been done like this, I could be wrong), but I question why other publishers aren't jumping on this bandwagon.

Maybe the people that buy the PDF at a full print price will get the print book for free or at a significant discount once it has been errata'd.

In this day and age of electronic publishing in the RPG business, I can see this being a smart way of getting a quality product to print.

Maybe some of the publishing people can chime in on this, or even other collectors and readers like myself.

 

[Alzrius]

I know that Eternity Publishing is doing this. The Immortal's Handbook Epic Bestiary vol. 1 went through numerous editing to address errata after being released in PDF form, and only after quite a while then went to a print release (due in September through Mongoose Publishing).

 

[trancejeremy]

RPGObjects generally does that too, I think (they give a discount, I think). Of course they are mostly a PDF company.

 

[catsclaw227]

Yea -- I see that there are some PDF companies that are doing this, but what about those that are primarily print?

 

[Umbran]

Maybe some of the publishing people can chime in on this, or even other collectors and readers like myself.

The idea isn't too new. White Wolf used it for at least some (if not all) of it's first line of Storyteller games. They'd release a paperback edition, let the players pound on it for a while, then rework it a bit and release it again in hardcover.

I think this worked for them because their fanbase was a bit on the rabid side Most of the time, folks are not interested in buying a product twice. If it isn't good enough the first time around, they'll generally wait for the second run, or not buy at all.

 

[catsclaw227]

I think this worked for them because their fanbase was a bit on the rabid side Most of the time, folks are not interested in buying a product twice. If it isn't good enough the first time around, they'll generally wait for the second run, or not buy at all.

What if the idea was... buy the PDF/Print package from our online store directly (at maybe full retail), and you get the pdf NOW and the print book when it's released?

 

[Umbran]

What if the idea was... buy the PDF/Print package from our online store directly (at maybe full retail), and you get the pdf NOW and the print book when it's released?

Well, a few of things come to mind -

In essence, you are asking people to pay you for the privilege of being your playtesters. Any publisher trying for this had better have the right attitude, or it'll flop in terms of public relations.

There is a trust issue here - if you are not an established publisher, the customer has little assurance that there will ever be a print run at all. It isn't as if the print run will follow very soon - playtesting, feedback, and editing take time. For most products, it may not be worth the effort.

There is a risk for the publisher, as this is a bit like dabbling in futures - You're planning and promising to hand over the pdf now, and a print copy later. But you don't yet kow the cost of the print copy. If the turnaround time is significant, or revisions major, your estimates on print costs may not match reality. End result: there's a risk you underestimate the print costs, and take a bath on copies you've already sold.

I am not sure why folks don't simply seek out larger playtesting pools in the first place. With these and other forums available, it isn't as if getting playtesters is hard...

 

[catsclaw227]

In essence, you are asking people to pay you for the privilege of being your playtesters. Any publisher trying for this had better have the right attitude, or it'll flop in terms of public relations.

Agreed.

There is a trust issue here - if you are not an established publisher, the customer has little assurance that there will ever be a print run at all. It isn't as if the print run will follow very soon - playtesting, feedback, and editing take time. For most products, it may not be worth the effort.

There is a risk for the publisher, as this is a bit like dabbling in futures - You're planning and promising to hand over the pdf now, and a print copy later. But you don't yet kow the cost of the print copy. If the turnaround time is significant, or revisions major, your estimates on print costs may not match reality. End result: there's a risk you underestimate the print costs, and take a bath on copies you've already sold.

But instead we see publishers putting out 750 or 1000 or 1500 unit print runs anyway, why not allow people to read/playtest/etc with PDF, correcting any flaws, and THEN release your planned run of 1000 units?

 

[Marlowe]

But instead we see publishers putting out 750 or 1000 or 1500 unit print runs anyway, why not allow people to read/playtest/etc with PDF, correcting any flaws, and THEN release your planned run of 1000 units?

Well, this could easily be done by offering loyal customers the chance to playtest stuff, basically get the stuff early, and then offer the final product free. Depending on the size of the playtest pool and the size of the publicher, that seems doable.

 

[SteveC]

Agreed.



But instead we see publishers putting out 750 or 1000 or 1500 unit print runs anyway, why not allow people to read/playtest/etc with PDF, correcting any flaws, and THEN release your planned run of 1000 units?

This is an interesting point. Considering the abysmal level of editing in most gaming products, it is probably a good idea. To a certain extent, some of the more successful companies are already doing this, so it sounds like it's a good idea to me...

--Steve