Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The Sigil" data-source="post: 1010571" data-attributes="member: 2013">I wouldn't call it an expose.&nbsp; I simply start from a few premises and go from there.It's quite possible that my premises are flawed, and if so, my argument is too.I doubt anyone will dispute that &quot;going to B&amp;W non-glossy&quot; will drop production costs.But any of the following could be flawed premises - I simply don't have enough information.&nbsp; They seem reasonable, but may simply be wrong:* Whether or not that drop would offset the lost advertising revenue* The cost benefit to Dungeon from not having one extra layer of middle man* The market penetration of Dungeon is greater than that of most non-WotC publishers* Dungeon is produced on a scale where &quot;price breaks&quot; due to quantities of scale occur to a greater degree than with smaller publishers* (Toughest to determine) The price point and market size for quality modules is sufficient to sustain a business producing them.&nbsp; It seems obvious that there is some minimum &quot;critical mass point&quot; of buyers that must be reached - exactly what that point is tough to determine (I guess the exact &quot;potential gross income point&quot; is the price point times the market size for that price point, then that point must be compared with &quot;gross cost of production of a module of Quality X&quot;).&nbsp; The theoretical question then becomes whether or not Dugeon readership times subscription cost is at least at that critical mass.&nbsp; I believe that the &quot;critical mass point&quot; is below the &quot;Dungeon readership&quot; but this is almost impossible to prove empirically.&nbsp; Obviously, Paizo believes this too or they wouldn't keep printing Dungeon, though.--The Sigil</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The Sigil, post: 1010571, member: 2013"] I wouldn't call it an expose. I simply start from a few premises and go from there. It's quite possible that my premises are flawed, and if so, my argument is too. I doubt anyone will dispute that "going to B&W non-glossy" will drop production costs. But any of the following could be flawed premises - I simply don't have enough information. They seem reasonable, but may simply be wrong: * Whether or not that drop would offset the lost advertising revenue * The cost benefit to Dungeon from not having one extra layer of middle man * The market penetration of Dungeon is greater than that of most non-WotC publishers * Dungeon is produced on a scale where "price breaks" due to quantities of scale occur to a greater degree than with smaller publishers * (Toughest to determine) The price point and market size for quality modules is sufficient to sustain a business producing them. It seems obvious that there is some minimum "critical mass point" of buyers that must be reached - exactly what that point is tough to determine (I guess the exact "potential gross income point" is the price point times the market size for that price point, then that point must be compared with "gross cost of production of a module of Quality X"). The theoretical question then becomes whether or not Dugeon readership times subscription cost is at least at that critical mass. I believe that the "critical mass point" is below the "Dungeon readership" but this is almost impossible to prove empirically. Obviously, Paizo believes this too or they wouldn't keep printing Dungeon, though. --The Sigil [/QUOTE]

Verification