EN World GameStore Closing

[Steve Conan Trustrum]

Dude.

RPGNow was the only site selling PDFs when DTRPG was founded.

Edit: I'll say this slowly for the reading impaired.

RPGNow at one time controlled the entire market.

100% of it.

But still competition formed, in the name of DTRPG.

Now that DTRPG and RPGNow have merged, they control 90% or so of the market.

90% is less than 100%.

Competition formed then.

Please explain why things are different now.

Sorry, I misunderstood part of what you were saying, but ...

Simply put? The vacuum DriveThru filled then no longer exists and there's currently no similar vacuum to act in its place. DriveThru was able to take its position because the newness of the market itself created instability that DriveThru latched onto using the angle of stepping away from the small "amateur" aspects of the industry. That instability no longer exists. EnWorld is a clear example of how even a company that already has a solid rep and the potential to spike into a large market share simply can't do so without a similar edge that isn't currently to be found in the existing market. If someone came along now and tried what DriveThru did then, I seriously doubt the more stable market of today would allow for it (which is a big part of why everyone else is so far behind RPGNow and Drivethru in market shares and why EnWorld never really showed throughput comparable to either RPGNow or Drivethru despite the customer base and tie-ins of its existing memberships and direct marketing potential.)

What you're basically saying is that the opportunity to introduce a new OS NOW is under the exact same conditions as they were when Microsoft and Apple first formed. That is, obviously, as untrue of the computer OS market as it is for the rpg PDF industry.

 

[2WS-Steve]

Check the 1999 case against Microsoft. Yes, there were actual competitors, but Microsoft's influence was such that it was ruled to be a monopoly.

I imagine Microsoft's lawyers thought the same.

If you examine the case I think you'll discover that you're not offering such a good example after all. Again, I'll offer a citation from the article at Roughlydrafted.com:

Remember that Microsoft wasn't judged a monopoly based on its market share, but rather due to an inability for others to enter the PC operating system market due to the Microsoft price paradox. Windows wasn’t sold, it was bundled.

Even today, Microsoft reports that 80% of its sales come from licensing agreements with hardware vendors, rather than retail sales to consumers. The market isn’t choosing to buy Windows over competing operating systems; even Linux is struggling to maintain a scrap of the PC installed base, and Linux is available for free.

 

[Steve Conan Trustrum]

If you examine the case I think you'll discover that you're not offering such a good example after all. Again, I'll offer a citation from the article at

Except for one important point: I was proving how the term monopoly sat outside your stated definition. I wasn't saying it was solely related to the point of market shares alone. I can go back through my posts and point out where I've also said that the influence OBS will have allows for the possibility of affecting prices, if you want something that directly fits with that exact instance.

And you may also want to check sections 18, 33 and 34 of the Findings of Fact regarding the Microsoft ruling. It specifically deals with how Microsoft's market shares affected the outcome and supported a monopoly ruling.

 

[2WS-Steve]

Except for one important point: I was proving how the term monopoly sat outside your stated definition. I wasn't saying it was solely related to the point of market shares alone. I can go back through my posts and point out where I've also said that the influence OBS will have allows for the possibility of affecting prices, if you want something that directly fits with that exact instance.

And you may also want to check sections 18, 33 and 34 of the Findings of Fact regarding the Microsoft ruling. It specifically deals with how Microsoft's market shares affected the outcome and supported a monopoly ruling.

Do you have a link?

 

[Steve Conan Trustrum]

Do you have a link?

This site has organized them for ease of reference:

http://www.albion.com/microsoft/

 

[2WS-Steve]

This site has organized them for ease of reference:

http://www.albion.com/microsoft/

So these would be the relevant sections?

18. Currently there are no products, nor are there likely to be any in the near future, that a significant percentage of consumers world-wide could substitute for Intel-compatible PC operating systems without incurring substantial costs. Furthermore, no firm that does not currently market Intel-compatible PC operating systems could start doing so in a way that would, within a reasonably short period of time, present a significant percentage of consumers with a viable alternative to existing Intel-compatible PC operating systems. It follows that, if one firm controlled the licensing of all Intel-compatible PC operating systems world-wide, it could set the price of a license substantially above that which would be charged in a competitive market and leave the price there for a significant period of time without losing so many customers as to make the action unprofitable. Therefore, in determining the level of Microsoft's market power, the relevant market is the licensing of all Intel-compatible PC operating systems world-wide.

and

33. Microsoft enjoys so much power in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems that if it wished to exercise this power solely in terms of price, it could charge a price for Windows substantially above that which could be charged in a competitive market. Moreover, it could do so for a significant period of time without losing an unacceptable amount of business to competitors. In other words, Microsoft enjoys monopoly power in the relevant market.

34. Viewed together, three main facts indicate that Microsoft enjoys monopoly power. First, Microsoft's share of the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems is extremely large and stable. Second, Microsoft's dominant market share is protected by a high barrier to entry. Third, and largely as a result of that barrier, Microsoft's customers lack a commercially viable alternative to Windows.

 

[Steve Conan Trustrum]

So these would be the relevant sections?

Yes. Not what was ruled against them, but information taken into account that supported the ruling that was reached. In other words, they couldn't have gotten the ruling if they didn't have supporting proof. Part of the supporting proof was first showing how Microsoft had unfair influence in the market, influence that squeezed out fair compeition, and how that would create the possibility of price manipulation.

 

[2WS-Steve]

Yes. Not what was ruled against them, but information taken into account that supported the ruling that was reached. In other words, they couldn't have gotten the ruling if they didn't have supporting proof. Part of the supporting proof was first showing how Microsoft had unfair influence in the market, influence that squeezed out fair compeition, and how that would create the possibility of price manipulation.

The issue here is the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions. Having a large portion of the market share is used to support that something might be a monopoly, but it's not sufficient for something to be a monopoly -- you also need things like other companies having a barrier to entry, or commercially viable alternatives, as mentioned in 34.

But between the print trade, the success that companies have selling off their own sites, and how easy it is to set up some new store, it seems like there's practically no barrier to entry.

Moreover, isn't this the case where the judge got overturned in a 7-0 ruling and criticized by the justices making the ruling?

I think there's a clearly analogous case (and more analogous than comparing OBS to a bundled operating system) out there already in iTunes -- and I suspect that OBS has a fervent desire to become the iTunes of comic books RPGs, and other geek culture. If you can come up with some evidence that iTunes is monopolistic I think you'd have a better case.

 

[Vigilance]

Sorry, I misunderstood part of what you were saying, but ...

Simply put? The vacuum DriveThru filled then no longer exists and there's currently no similar vacuum to act in its place. DriveThru was able to take its position because the newness of the market itself created instability that DriveThru latched onto using the angle of stepping away from the small "amateur" aspects of the industry. That instability no longer exists. EnWorld is a clear example of how even a company that already has a solid rep and the potential to spike into a large market share simply can't do so without a similar edge that isn't currently to be found in the existing market. If someone came along now and tried what DriveThru did then, I seriously doubt the more stable market of today would allow for it (which is a big part of why everyone else is so far behind RPGNow and Drivethru in market shares and why EnWorld never really showed throughput comparable to either RPGNow or Drivethru despite the customer base and tie-ins of its existing memberships and direct marketing potential.)

What you're basically saying is that the opportunity to introduce a new OS NOW is under the exact same conditions as they were when Microsoft and Apple first formed. That is, obviously, as untrue of the computer OS market as it is for the rpg PDF industry.

No, there isnt the possibility to introduce a new OS now because there's not a very competitive environment in that field.

I do not however, think that's the case in the situation we're currently discussing.

I think what allowed DTRPG to succeed to the level it did was exclusive publishers. They offered something no one else did, not even RPGNow.

In other words, they simply competed at a high level.

RPGNow offers a fantastic service and they offer it well. No one said competing with them would be easy. But someone (DTRPG) came up with an idea and I don't think there's any artificial force in the PDF marketplace right now to stop SOMEONE ELSE from offering something no one else does.

Maybe it's lower prices, a slicker interface or something no one has ever thought of.

My point is, there's no ARTIFICIAL forces to hinder competition, which is my definition of a monopoly.

There are NATURAL forces hindering competition.

Those natural forces are that there's a company in the market (OBS) that does a damn fine
job of delivering PDFs.

That's my take anyway.

Chuck

 

[Steve Conan Trustrum]

The issue here is the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions. Having a large portion of the market share is used to support that something might be a monopoly, but it's not sufficient for something to be a monopoly -- you also need things like other companies having a barrier to entry, or commercially viable alternatives, as mentioned in 34.

The market share IS a barrier to competative entry. The standing of e23 and Paizo, and the resulting inability to comparatively compete that hit EnWorld's store, are proof of that.

But between the print trade, the success that companies have selling off their own sites, and how easy it is to set up some new store, it seems like there's practically no barrier to entry.

There is a lot more to competing at that level than setting up a store. I could get a buddy of mien to program a store for me, but that doesn't mean it would be a competitor.

Moreover, isn't this the case where the judge got overturned in a 7-0 ruling and criticized by the justices making the ruling?

The ruling that Microsoft had to be broken up was overturned. Microsoft was still found to be acting under anti-competition and the same appeals court that refused to break up the company still maintained that Microsoft acted as a monopoly.