Gizzard said:
Lol.
Well, the knee-jerk reaction is to say, "Of course, ThingMart can do whatever it wants." But when you become the dominant player in an industry, then the rules change for you.
Think of Microsoft. When you own a practical monopoly then suddenly you can't do things like change your OS so non-Blue things don't run anymore or even bundle your Green things all together. Want GreenOS? Then buy Green Browser too. That lands you in court for 5 years (even if you get away with it in the end.)
Overall, that's my problem with ThingMart. I think its terribly disingenious of people to argue in this thread that they're shopping at ThingMart in order to preserve capitalism when ThingMart itself would love to crush every other competitor out of existence and then rake the consumer over the coals. That's the nature of ThingMart's business model.
I don't think there's anything inherently evil about buying from ThingMart; I'd just hate to see a long term future where the mass-market discounters won the fight with the FLGS. "OK d20 publishers, here's what we want. Our market research has shown that very few people actually have d20s. But lots of people have d6s. If you have any d6 games, we'll stock them. But we can't afford the shelf space for d20 anymore." Mass-marketeers cater to the lowest common denominator and the RPG industry does not fit nicely in that particular hole.
Knee-jerk?
I think you've not only missed the point of my analogy but are attempting to fashion of straw man from my hypothetical in order to refocus on the original debate in this thread, I.E. that of where one purchases their gaming supplements, for what reasons and who is to blame for the advent of such a choice. The Thing-Mart analogy has to do with the Music sales/censoring question and has little in common with their game supplement pricing policy other than both currently being focused on Walmart. I'll try to touch on both debates so you can pick both apart without losing the point in further anlagous rhetoric.
Regarding the game supplement pricing policies, it's the publishers and distributers that set the wholesale prices and offer deeper discounts for larger volumes of stock. This appeals to chains like Walmart who are in a position to take advantage of them while few, if any, FLGSs are not. If Walmart takes advantage of those deeper discounts and keeps their shelf price low in order to secure sales that's no less than would be done by a large FLGS over a smaller FLGS in the same market.
The primary paralel between the music situation and the game supplement situation aside from both pointing toward Walmart as unfair is that people who do not like the outcome focus their umbrage in the wrong place.
It's easier to blame Walmart for the toned-down versions of their favorite artist's music than it is to realize that if the artist never records a toned-down version, and the distributor doesn't offer a toned-down version, then a toned-down version never exists, never makes it to market and therefore can never be sold at Walmart. In the end it is the artist's choice and if the artist complains and points toward Walmart then they are simply being deceptive and shifting the focus of blame for what ever reasons they may have. Is the artist to blame for wanting radio and market exposure? I can hardly think so.
But back to the game supplement situation since you seem more keen on that subject. Does anyone really think that Walmart is selling game supplements for less than they pay for them in an effort to drive FLGSs out of business? Maybe. Perhaps a distributor or publisher who sells through Walmart will enlighten us on how much per unit Walmart pays for their stock and we'll know if they are getting them at deep discounts and making a small profit or if they are selling them at a loss and lower than an FLGS can.
Personally, I think publishers, writers, artists, editors, and graphic artists make precious little compared to what they deserve so I find it hard to blame the publishers and distributers when they try to go after new markets and more exposure by offering the deep discounts.
In the end you have to hope that the FLGSs will recover some or all of the losses on the few books that Walmart carries by being able to sell more of the small publisher's books that would never be sold through Walmart. The hope rests in the idea that with wider exposure more people come to the hobby and have to go to the FLGSs to get products that Walmart does not carry.
That's the price that is paid to expand the hobby, gain more profits that can be paid to present and future creators of supplements, and in the hopefully keep up the quality and quantity of materials that give all hobbists a wider and more varied choice of products from which to choose.
Is it right? Is it wrong? Is it just how it is?
