Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Rasyr" data-source="post: 2641000" data-attributes="member: 2855">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.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.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%) No idea. Really? Every product? Every supplement? Not just few "core products", but everything?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???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.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.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).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.No, they go after them to make them stop illegally distributing their products."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. 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.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.</blockquote>

Verification