Best 3.5 pre-order prices: $17.62 each at Walmart ($52.86 + $5.88 S&H = $58.74)

[The Little Raven]

Those that won't complie Walmart doesn't carry.

Exactly. If they CHOOSE not to comply, they don't sell through Walmart. Again, the record labels make that choice. Walmart has its own standards, and companies can go elsewhere. However, due to the desire for money, they don't. Again, this is not the fault of Walmart, but the fault of the recording industry.

By buying your D&D books from walmart, long term they get your money and people who care about the games (such as En world, FLGS, other online game shops etc) don't. Long term, those businesses go away and all we have left to buy from is wal mart.

So, you're saying my choice is to buy from a game retailer (receiving perhaps a 25% discount), or put them out of business by buying from Walmart (receiving a 50% discount)? Sucks to be the game retailer then.

Once that happens, where walmart isn't challenged, a company like WOTC is forced to censor their product content or they can't sell books.

Ummm... Remember, WOTC is owned by Hasbro... another multi-national corporation with extensive influence on the direction the hobby gaming market can take. They survive just fine without Walmart, and will continue to do so. As long as there are book stores, there will be outlets for D&D products.

I personally am appalled by Wal mart's overly conversative policies as I trust our labelling and rating systems to allow us to make our own choices. Theer doesn't need to be another level of content control. Here are some links I came across that gathers the more interesting aspects of Walmart practices together.

What labelling and rating system? Electronic games have the ESRB rating, but roleplaying games, and books in general, have no sort of standardized rating system to determine who can or cannot buy the book.

In fact, I have seen children (I'm talking ages 10 and below) purchase books full of nude art without an issue, but be unable to purchase a video game rated M because it contains violence.

If FLGS are in such danger of losing to a larger corporation, then why don't they do something about it? Why don't they band together into some sort of retailer/distributor network in order to offer better deals? Why don't they work together, rather than compete with eachother?

Or does that defeat the entire purpose of individual capitalism?

 

[Caliban]

I choose to support my Friendly Local Game Store (Imperial Outpost Games in Phoenix, Arizona) when I can. It's where I play half my games anyway (something I can't do at Wal-Mart) and I can meet other Gamers (something that doesn't happen very often at Wal-Mart).

I consider it a small part of repaying them for all the support they have given the local gaming community over the years.

Of course, if you don't have a FLGS that supports the gaming community in your area, Wal-Mart seems to be the way to go.

 

[Tiefling]

No, not semantics. The truth.

No, it really is semantics. Semantics is the study or science of meaning in language. If you're debating whether something is or is not censorship you're effectively debating the meaning of the word "censorship," and debating the meaning of a word is, by definition, semantics.

 

[Pbartender]

Personally, when I shop, I look for service, price and product. No matter whop they are, the store that provides the product I want for a low enough price with respectable service gets my money.

Now, all things equal (or close to equal), I prefer to patronize locally owned stores and restaurants. In my experience, if you visit a Local Shop often enough, the owners get to know you. Eventually, the regular cutsomers get special treatment (or you at least feel like you're getting special treatment). That's worth a lot to me... And it's something you'll never get out of a department store.

In other words, for $30 less, I'd order from Wal-Mart, but for $25 less, I'll order from Derek at TalonComics.com ... Especially since all my FLGS's will be selling them at full price.

No, it really is semantics. Semantics is the study or science of meaning in language. If you're debating whether something is or is not censorship you're effectively debating the meaning of the word "censorship," and debating the meaning of a word is, by definition, semantics.

Heh... Now that's funny... The semantics of "semantics".

 

[WizarDru]

Again, not censorship. Sheryl Crow and her record company were not prevented from publishing the CD.

And your point being....?

Or were you assuming I was claiming that it was? I think you may have me confused with another poster's point. I was merely pointing out that Walmart wasn't responding to public demand when they made their choices. I certainly don't consider that censorship by any stretch. Sheryl Crow could have chosen to leave the CD unmodified...and then not have Walmart sell it...which is all fine in my book.

 

[LightPhoenix]

All I can say is welcome to a free market economy.

 

[Numion]

If you do a search for Walmart censorship of music, you will find numerous webpages and musician coalitions dedicated to fighting Walmart's policies. Two of the examples that come to mind for me regarding their censorship is where they made both Rob Zombie and John Mellencamp change their album cover art. Rob Zombie's had a strategically positioned naked girl on the cover that showed no nudity, but they made him put a air brushed bikini on her, and John Mellencamp's album had a devil on the cover standing next to either Jesus or an angel (don't remember - never owned the album). Any rate, they were told by Walmart to change the album's covers or Walmart wouldn't buy them. Record companies all the time are forced to make Wal Mart varients, so if you buy your music at wal mart then you may end up purchasing an album with altered lyrics, art, or other content not intended by the artist.

But surely a company that sells stuff can choose what kind of stuff they want to sell? Should wal-mart be obliged to sell dildos if they came with sheryl crows album?

 

[Numion]

All I can say is welcome to a free market economy.

Amen to that. Furthermore I believe as a customer that its almost my duty to actively seek the lowest prices, and thus ensuring the working of the capitalistic system.

If a shop wants to charge extra for products, then they should add some extra value to the product. FLGSs just don't do that for me. (As I play at home and am more knowledgeable about new releases than the shops clerks are.)

 

[Mark]

Hypothetical-

Blue Guy makes Blue Things.

Color Co. takes Blue Guy's Blue Things packages them for distribution to stores.

Spectrum Pump displays Things to people in a way that helps the sales of Things but the law requires that the colors not be too Blue.

Color Co. asks Blue Guy to make a Green-Blue version for Spectrum Pump in the hopes that more Blue Things will sell.

Blue Guy complies and makes Green-Blue Things.

Thing-Mart sells only non-Blue Things.

Color Co. goes to Thing-Mart and asks them to sell Blue Guy's Blue Things.

Thing-Mart tells Color Co. that Blue Guy's Blue Things are not something they will sell but will sell the Green-Blue version of Blue Things for them.

Color Co. tells Blue Guy about the opportunity.

Blue Guy agrees (or has agreed contractually) to allow his Green-Blue Things to be sold at Thing-Mart.

Blue Guy later complains that Thing-Mart is unfair to Blue Guy for only selling non-Blue Things.

Is Blue Guy within his rights to complain?

Didn't Blue Guy personally produced the Green-Blue Things?

Can Blue Guy refuse to make the Green-Blue Things?

Is Thing-Mart within their rights to only sell non-Blue Things?

Should Thing-Mart be forced to sell Blue Things even if they do not wish to sell them and told everyone up front they sell only non-Blue Things?

What part is Color Co. playing in this?

What part is Spectrum Pump playing in this?

If there are no Green-Blue Things what is the result?

 

[Barendd Nobeard]

Hypothetical-

Blue Guy makes Blue Things.

Color Co. takes Blue Guy's Blue Things packages them for distribution to stores.

Spectrum Pump displays Things to people in a way that helps the sales of Things but the law requires that the colors not be too Blue.

Color Co. asks Blue Guy to make a Green-Blue version for Spectrum Pump in the hopes that more Blue Things will sell.

Green Guy complies and makes Green-Blue Things.

Thing-Mart sells only non-Blue Things.

Color Co. goes to Thing-Mart and asks them to sell Blue Guy's Blue Things.

Thing-Mart tells Color Co. that Blue Guy's Blue Things are not something they will sell but will sell the Green-Blue version of Blue Things for them.

Color Co. tells Blue Guy about the opportunity.

Blue Guy agrees (or has agreed contractually) to allow his Green-Blue Things to be sold at Thing-Mart.

Blue Guy later complains that Thing-Mart is unfair to Blue Guy for only selling non-Blue Things.

Is Blue Guy within his rights to complain?

Didn't Blue Guy personally produced the Green-Blue Things?

Can Blue Guy refuse to make the Green-Blue Things?

Is Thing-Mart within their rights to only sell non-Blue Things?

Should Thing-Mart be forced to sell Blue Things even if they do not wish to sell them and told everyone up front they sell only non-Blue Things?

What part is Color Co. playing in this?

What part is Spectrum Pump playing in this?

If there are no Green-Blue Things what is the result?

"I see a blue thing and I want it painted black
No colors anymore I want them to turn black
...
No more will my blue-green thing turn a deeper blue
I could not foresee this thing happening to you."

apologies to The Rolling Stones