Charles Ryan on Adventures

[Vocenoctum]

Trust me, they got the memo. Ask all of the staff that lost their jobs.

GOO is in very, very bad shape.

And this is because of the SRD, or because of exchange rates and such? I think GoO would have information on how the SRD affected sales of their products. For myself it contributed to purchasing Centauri Knights, the Stingy Anime Edition, Mecha and a few other books.

The difference with the Ars Magica release were a few, such as a new edition already announced, the release of a PDF with the full version of the game, and the general "niche" of Ars Magica. I'm not sure how any of this affected everything overall, but they aren't factors to ignore.

 

[Rasyr]

I think the distribution system will really drive RPG's to a different system eventually. Mark up is consistant, so to increase revenue, the prices go up, driving more people to the online discount shops. In addition, distributors stocking practices and payment practices tend to fluctuate with company whim, making it hard to get stuff.

The distribution system is in the process of a slow meltdown. It was even before the advent of the OGL and D&D3e. The OGL and the results of it only made the situation worse.

If companies were really worried about local gaming stores, they'd find a way for them to make a higher percentage of the sale price, along with the manufacturer, and a system that made it where Amazon/buy.com couldn't do the deep discounts at the same time. But, since the RPG industry is so fractiuous, I can't see that happening without some huge stimulus.

So, are you saying that publishers should subsidize retailers? The only way to avoid the online deep discounters is to not sell to them. Since the majority of them all deal with one or two distributors (such as Ingrams, the large book chain distributor), that is relatively easy, but doing so also means that publisher's books won't be in Barnes & Noble or Waldenbooks or any other large chain.

Many publishers won't even deal with the book trade distributors because of they insist on a return policy, and out of those 2,000 books the publisher sold to them in September, 1,500 are likely to be returned in December (so the distributor has a low count for end of year inventory), meaning that the publisher has to refund the payment (which is likely already spent on publishing other products). This plays havoc with finances, and it hurt a number of companies just this past year when it happened.

Yes, the current distribution system is dying and until something comes along that can replace it, it is something publishers have to deal with. Publishers do not have any real say in how the distribution system works. It doesn't matter if they are fractious or not, they cannot control what they do not own.

I'd agree that PDF is in a different class for this discussion. But at the same time, how many PDF's make a great sale? If you sold 300 pdf's, you'd be a sales leader, if you sold 300 books, you'd be in bankruptcy. I'm one of those that doesn't do much with PDF's anymore, so my views there are biased.

When ICE first put out HARP as a pdf, I asked several of the publishers how many sales would be needed to consider the HARP PDF as a success. At the time, I was told anything between 300 and 500 copies in the first month. HARP sold more than that minimum (300) in its first 3 days, and beat the maximum quoted (500) in its first week.

Since that time, ICE's PDF sales have continually climbed. Print sales have fluctuated a bit, sometimes climbing, sometimes slipping, but in general and on average, steady. ICE is one of the top 50 (IIRC, someplace in the 30s) on rpgnow, yet rpgnow is only a fraction of our pdf sales (maybe 5%-10%)

Does Phil Reed build on past PDF's with future PDF's? If so, did products that built on this PDF given for free increase or decrease?

No idea.

The D20 Modern SRD is complete up to Future and Urban Arcana. Not sure if they'll add Past, Apocalypse or Cyberscape, or when.

Really? Every product? Every supplement? Not just few "core products", but everything?

The D&D SRD is less complete, rarely added to. I don't have any official quotes for why, but if they feel that the fantasy side is being taken advantage of, then I could understand why.

I bolded and underlined a portion of what you said there. That IS the point that I am trying to get across here. The various 3rd party d20 publishers DO feel that if they put their stuff into SRD, that they WILL get taken advantage of. You say it is fine if WotC feels that way, but not other companies???

Either way, I'm not asking that every book be added to say, a GR SRD. Just the core rules (or core rule differences) and perhaps a sampling of the elements from supplements that are "core" for future products.

Ahh.. yes, put their core bits in an SRD so that others can take advantage of them, so that they can lose sales of those core products.

When purchasing something, I keep in mind the likeliness that the product will require Erratta, and the presence of past Erratta's from the company. If I've got a bunch of 3.0 products and the companies response to fan requests for a 3.5 update is "we don't have the time or effort to put into it" then it counts when I'm purchasing another product from them. If I can't count on the company supporting a product that may be flawed in some way, then I need to keep it in mind.

ROFLMAO!!!!
You do realize that erratta is "correcting mistakes", right? Products written using the 3.0 SRD were NOT mistakes, they were proper product written using the current ruleset at the time of publication. It is not their fault that WotC pulled the rug out from under them and released 3.5 2 years earlier than originally planned. Just because the system itself changed does not make those products "incorrect" or mistaken.

And if those 3.0 products are dead (as in sales of those products dropped below a level that allows that product to be maintained and reprinted), then there is not any profit in supporting it and updating it to the newer system, especially if it that updating will not generate enough sales to pay for that update. In other words, "It's dead, Jim".

That is soemthing that you need to understand and accept. I will say it again. If updating a given 3.0 product will not cause enough sales of that product to pay for the expenses required to do that update and generate a profit, then the company would be stupid to do that update.

It again falls back on economics. It has to be worthwhile to do such an update or else it won't get done, and shouldn't be done.

WotC pays their employee's, some of the web updates and such are produced by freelancers. WotC understands that such things are a part of doing business. There is no magical pot of gold at Hasbro HQ, with which to pay for such things.

And now for something completely different.... the Larch!

I was talking about "upgrading". From 3.0 to 3.5, not online support such as web enhancements for freebies or articles or whatever.

First off, WotC generates revenue that is several orders of magnitude greater than any other rpg company (they have this little thing, it is called D&D, and it tends to make them a little bit of money). More revenue means that they can afford to hire more folks to generate online freebies and support items for products.

Support items are not the same thing as product upgrades (from 3.0 to 3.5). Not even WotC does "product upgrades", at least not in the sense that you have been talking about. They may have "upgraded" bits and pieces and put them in other products, but that is not what you have been talking about (at least, I don't think it is, I know it isn't what I have been talking about).

Other companies only see what's in front of them, they want (and need) the next product, so they keep moving forward. I've come to the opinion lately that a lot of the D20 companies have lost sight of the hobby.

Sorry, but I just have to call "BS" on this comment.

From what you are saying, you are upset that because they won't go back and "fix" products that you feel are "broken" (because WotC screwed* them over with its early release 3.5), that they have lost sight of the "hobby"? Sheesh!!

Here is a clue. Publishers don't look at rpgs as "hobby", they look at them as a business. And if something does not make business sense, they are not going to do it, period.

*And yes, I say WotC screwed them over, because on the OGL lists, back before 3.0 had been released, Ryan Dancey (who was working for WotC at the time) told the members of that list that they did not have to worry about WotC changing things (i.e. the system) for at least 5 years.

Do they simply close their eyes and say that there are no pirated copies?

No, they go after them to make them stop illegally distributing their products.

In case the point isn't clear, Free Fully Formated copies exist, the company should understand that. They can ignore that and discard old products (or try to turn a couple more dollars from PDF sales) or they can garner goodwill and continued sales by releasing some of the work under their own control. I'm not advocating theft of property, I'm merely raising the point that it's not a binary condition. They don't have the choice of "release material" or "never see material released". It's already there, and to ignore that condition and grumble about piracy is pointless.

"Free Fully Formatted"?? Nice euphamism for "pirated copy". As I stated above, whether or not a product will get "updated" needs to be an economic decision. If updating it will generate enough profits that will pay for it and more, then yes. But if it won't, then there is no reason to update it unless they are going to use portions in other products and then it makes sense to only update those portions needed. No matter what a few disgruntled fans may think about it.

If a fan is not intelligent enough to see this, then perhaps it is best if they went elsewhere.

C) Print sales have been trending downward, and the majority of sales are made in the short term.

Man, that is an understatement if ever there was one. Prints have been "trending downward" for years. In the past year, they (print sales to distributors and on through to retailers, at least) have tanked, in a major way. Tanked so badly that several distributors have gone out (or in at least one case, gotten out) of business.

PDF sales are trending up and a well designed PDF product is "ever green". Barring something major (like 3.5 edition) it will sell forever.

All this adds up to making PDF vital to the survival of RPG companies in the current climate.

Yup. I think you are completely right on the money here. PDF sales, and direct sales of print products is where things seem to be heading.

 

[Breakdaddy]

*Loads a new suction cup tipped Nerf dart into his overly complicated gun/bow/thingy*

Hey Merric, I got somethin' for ya...

I would [/i]never[/i] use anything lethal on Merric. I would actually like to know his opinion of this little bit of hubris.

The Auld Grump

Sometimes I wouldnt mind using something semi-lethal, like a Taser(tm) or rocksalt.

 

[philreed]

And this is because of the SRD, or because of exchange rates and such?

I suspect it was a lot of little problems that were then pushed by one bigger problem.

My point is that they're not exactly the best company to hold up as an example these days.

 

[Belen]

One effect it would have would be preventing the company from releasing the book in PDF form, which is a nice way for a company to make some extra cash in the long term from an out of print book.

Its a simple fact of economics- d20 companies are tightly budgeted operations that are usually struggling to stay out of the red. Most are beginning to release out of print books in PDF so they can continue to see a return on them.

Asking them not to do that- or even worse asking them to pay someone to make a "SRD" so the material would be free, is an expense the vast majority of RPG companies simply cant afford.

Chuck

You're right. Asking a company to provide a service for their customers is totally uncool.

Funny thing here is that the companies do not have to pay anyone to make an SRD. They could find a gamer to do it for free. I'll bet a lot of gamers would do it as long as they had their name attached, such as "SRD created by so and so..."

I am sure that a lot of excuses exist for companies to avoid doing things. Of course, they never look for solutions either.

 

[Belen]

IN any event, more main issues with d20 companies remain the lack of support for their products. Lack of support keeps me from using a lot of thier material and keeps me playing D&D, which is supported.

 

[Vocenoctum]

Yes, the current distribution system is dying and until something comes along that can replace it, it is something publishers have to deal with. Publishers do not have any real say in how the distribution system works. It doesn't matter if they are fractious or not, they cannot control what they do not own.

If the industry had a central bargaining entity, it would have more power than singular companies. That's what I meant by "fractiious".

Really? Every product? Every supplement? Not just few "core products", but everything?

I'm not sure if you're argueing or asking, but if you go to the SRD section for D20 Modern, you'll see that significant portions of the books are indeed free, online.

I bolded and underlined a portion of what you said there. That IS the point that I am trying to get across here. The various 3rd party d20 publishers DO feel that if they put their stuff into SRD, that they WILL get taken advantage of. You say it is fine if WotC feels that way, but not other companies???

WotC not adding material to the SRD because they feel that publishers are using their material without adding to it in a significant manner, is totally different than a publisher holding on to their material in the fear that people won't buy books that have already sold past their prime. The material the publishers are withholding is material that is already OGL, and can be used by anyone. They're just not making it accessible to folks.

Ahh.. yes, put their core bits in an SRD so that others can take advantage of them, so that they can lose sales of those core products.

Er, this is exactly what the discussion is ABOUT, whether it would hurt or not.

ROFLMAO!!!!
You do realize that erratta is "correcting mistakes", right? Products written using the 3.0 SRD were NOT mistakes, they were proper product written using the current ruleset at the time of publication. It is not their fault that WotC pulled the rug out from under them and released 3.5 2 years earlier than originally planned. Just because the system itself changed does not make those products "incorrect" or mistaken.

Two seperate items, both labeled under "support" in my paragraph. Erratta and Updates are Support. My point is, a lot of the third party stuff I was getting was in need of Erratta, and I've yet to see any. Therfor, I don't buy from those companies without verifying that the material is significantly error-free.

And if those 3.0 products are dead (as in sales of those products dropped below a level that allows that product to be maintained and reprinted), then there is not any profit in supporting it and updating it to the newer system, especially if it that updating will not generate enough sales to pay for that update. In other words, "It's dead, Jim".

That is soemthing that you need to understand and accept. I will say it again. If updating a given 3.0 product will not cause enough sales of that product to pay for the expenses required to do that update and generate a profit, then the company would be stupid to do that update.

They'd be stupid to respond to fan's requests for support? I think there's a fundamental issue there. I'm saying companies should support their older products, and that doing so would benefit them overall as fans return because they know that support is there.

First off, WotC generates revenue that is several orders of magnitude greater than any other rpg company (they have this little thing, it is called D&D, and it tends to make them a little bit of money). More revenue means that they can afford to hire more folks to generate online freebies and support items for products.

And that greater support will benefit them in the long run. Plus, as I said, generating more revenue is true, but they also have higher expectations for revenue, they have Corporate Overlords to please.

Support items are not the same thing as product upgrades (from 3.0 to 3.5). Not even WotC does "product upgrades", at least not in the sense that you have been talking about. They may have "upgraded" bits and pieces and put them in other products, but that is not what you have been talking about (at least, I don't think it is, I know it isn't what I have been talking about).

I'm talking about something like this:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20030718a

Sorry, but I just have to call "BS" on this comment.

From what you are saying, you are upset that because they won't go back and "fix" products that you feel are "broken" (because WotC screwed* them over with its early release 3.5), that they have lost sight of the "hobby"? Sheesh!!

Two seperate issues. It doesn't matter to me WHY something is no longer useful, if the company did further playtesting and found out some feat or PrC was broken, I'd appreciate a fix. It's not mandatory for every product, but it is a plus in the "support" column.

Here is a clue. Publishers don't look at rpgs as "hobby", they look at them as a business. And if something does not make business sense, they are not going to do it, period.

The RPG business is different. The money invested in an RPG company would most likely make more money in many other business models. If they're doing it solely as an investment, then they're doing it wrong. RPG companies have to take their industry and their audience in mind when planning for the future and the long term stability of the market.

*And yes, I say WotC screwed them over, because on the OGL lists, back before 3.0 had been released, Ryan Dancey (who was working for WotC at the time) told the members of that list that they did not have to worry about WotC changing things (i.e. the system) for at least 5 years.

Opinions vary.

"Free Fully Formatted"?? Nice euphamism for "pirated copy".

Er, I said it was pirated, that's what I was talking about. The "free fully formatted" was to contrast the pirated copy versus a nofrills company produced version.

If a fan is not intelligent enough to see this, then perhaps it is best if they went elsewhere.

To forestall the next step in most of these discussions, telling me that the publishers don't want me as a customer isn't the best answer for a consumer market. I'm not the only person citing a lack of support for purchasing decisions.

 

[Vocenoctum]

I suspect it was a lot of little problems that were then pushed by one bigger problem.

My point is that they're not exactly the best company to hold up as an example these days.

True enough, but that I am aware of, they're the only one that has a free, online SRD. They've had it for a while, and it's contributed to some of my purchases, and I don't ever recall anyone saying it detracted from their sales.

So, even if it's only one shaky example of a company that provided an SRD and did well with it, it's the only real example I could think of. The closest to the discussion on the opposite side is the Ars Magica thing, and that's a totally different animal.

 

[Michael Tree]

So, even if it's only one shaky example of a company that provided an SRD and did well with it, it's the only real example I could think of.

You're inventing the "did well with it" part. GOO hasn't talked about how it affected their sales. We know nothing about its results. So assuming that GOO did well with it is disingeneous at best. One could just as reasonably assume that they did very poorly with it.

The difference with the Ars Magica release were a few, such as a new edition already announced, the release of a PDF with the full version of the game, and the general "niche" of Ars Magica. I'm not sure how any of this affected everything overall, but they aren't factors to ignore.

The new edition wasn't announced until a while after they started giving the 4e rules for free. And I doubt that releasing it as a pdf of the "full version" of the game would be significantly difference from releasing a SRD with the full game without the pretty layout.

It's not a perfectly analogous to what you're suggesting, but is it any wonder that companies don't try what you're suggesting when the only examples of it that were dismal failures or had unknown results?

 

[Michael Tree]

IN any event, more main issues with d20 companies remain the lack of support for their products. Lack of support keeps me from using a lot of thier material and keeps me playing D&D, which is supported.

That's a shame. I'd sympathize, if you didn't totally ignore that many companies are supporting their games, through pdfs.

Besides, is it good business for companies to make unprofitable print supplements just so they won't lose you as a customer? I'd say not. WotC can afford to make them, essentially as treating them as marketing expenses, but most other companies exist on a smaller scale that doesn't allow that.