EN World GameStore - To answer some publisher questions...

[HalWhitewyrm]

My bad and done. I hadn't had a chance during the week.

 

[Morrus]

No problem - and thanks. I imagine I'll be reminding a lot of people over the next week or so.

 

[FraserRonald]

The previews aren't PDFs that people have to download, and load up Acrobat to see. They're JPGs (Or gifs, or PNGs or whatever) that are actual excerpts from the product. Check out a product that has them to see it in action. It's a huge bandwidth draw, but it's something popularized by Amazon.

I see what you mean. However, while the approach is certainly interesting, in my opinion it is not novel or useful enough to warrant the outlay of the required fee. It does, however, look quite good and is quite easy. An excellent idea.

Of course, you're perfectly within your right not to pay the sign up fee. We ARE beginning to draw completely new customers - you'll see how soon. The fact remains, though, that for a majority it is going to be a rather substantial cost for us to host it in terms of bandwidth.

Which makes the $99 fee more understandable. However, given that the number of products SEP would present would be far below many other publishers, even with us using the preview system, we would still be subsidising other publishers who have substantially more products.

The thing is, if ENGS does draw on a host of new customers in such a fashion that there is actually significant growth in the PDF market rather than a redistribution of customers, the $99 fee will no longer look so daunting. At that time, SEP will, of course, reconsider it's position.

I hope that does, in fact, happen.

Additionally, and this may sound strange, but it was actually publishers who requested a (moderately) steep activation fee, and it was a long discussion in the publisher forum trying to find the right numbers and reasons.

Actually, that does not sound strange at all. I am not surprised, though if the intention was to discourage any particular element or undesirable segment from joining, I don't think a high fee is the best way to insure that. However, given as SEP is not joining specifically because of the fee, saying such may seem self-serving.

Thanks for clearing those things up, Chris. It's appreciated.

 

[jmucchiello]

Of course, you're perfectly within your right not to pay the sign up fee. We ARE beginning to draw completely new customers - you'll see how soon. The fact remains, though, that for a majority it is going to be a rather substantial cost for us to host it in terms of bandwidth.

Wait-a-minute!! How does a one-time fee cover bandwidth? Nope. No way. The 20% commission paid to ENGS is supposed to cover ALL bandwidth and hosting costs and include profit for ENGS. If you are using the setup fee for bandwidth costs, you will be out of business in no time.

Additionally, and this may sound strange, but it was actually publishers who requested a (moderately) steep activation fee, and it was a long discussion in the publisher forum trying to find the right numbers and reasons.

As I suspected, the one-time fee is just a barrier to entry. Perhaps, perhaps, you could convince me that the one-time fee is there to cover initial programming costs. But then what covers on-going support costs? Support and maintenance on software (my RL ballywick) is usually 3 times initial development costs.

Usually setup fees cover one-time costs. Aside from flipping the field in the database that says so-and-so's account is or isn't attached to a vendor account, I don't really see what these setup costs are.

I agree with Hal and Fraser. Until your customer base is larger, I cannot justify layoing out the setup fee.

 

[HalWhitewyrm]

And the thing is, I am not opposed to a set-up fee at all. I would gladly and happily pay $50 like at RPGnow.com, but not twice that. I think the set-up fee is an artificial barrier to keep so-called hobby-publishers out of the store. A straight up review process, like what I had to go through with DriveThruRPG and e23, would serve that purpose a lot better.

 

[Twin Rose]

Wait-a-minute!! How does a one-time fee cover bandwidth? Nope. No way. The 20% commission paid to ENGS is supposed to cover ALL bandwidth and hosting costs and include profit for ENGS. If you are using the setup fee for bandwidth costs, you will be out of business in no time.
As I suspected, the one-time fee is just a barrier to entry. Perhaps, perhaps, you could convince me that the one-time fee is there to cover initial programming costs. But then what covers on-going support costs? Support and maintenance on software (my RL ballywick) is usually 3 times initial development costs.

Usually setup fees cover one-time costs. Aside from flipping the field in the database that says so-and-so's account is or isn't attached to a vendor account, I don't really see what these setup costs are.

I agree with Hal and Fraser. Until your customer base is larger, I cannot justify layoing out the setup fee.

I have, in fact, comitted to the long term service and support of the website, it's database, and new features. Also to increased advertising, not just here on EN World, but other places as well. (Please see our ad in roleplayingtips weekly as a start). An activation fee wasn't my idea, but simply a number that was discussed for some time. Yes, it's partially that. It's partially advertising and other programs for a successful launch. It's a lot of things.

But certainly, take your time. Wait and see. We aren't going anywhere

 

[carpedavid]

Additionally, and this may sound strange, but it was actually publishers who requested a (moderately) steep activation fee, and it was a long discussion in the publisher forum trying to find the right numbers and reasons.

I'm going to hazard a guess and say that the publishers who requested the higher fee were probably the same ones who pushed for the RPGNow/Edge split. The only reason for purposely requesting a higher fee is to prevent smaller publishers from joining. Or rather, to weed out those that "aren't serious" about running their companies as a business.

Unfortunately, I think this attitude will end up hurting the pdf industry, not helping it. Anything that restricts the growth of new publishers will slow down the growth of the industry. If one of the goals of the new store is to grow the pdf industry, then I think that restricting the available products will be counter-productive.

 

[Twin Rose]

I'm going to hazard a guess and say that the publishers who requested the higher fee were probably the same ones who pushed for the RPGNow/Edge split. The only reason for purposely requesting a higher fee is to prevent smaller publishers from joining. Or rather, to weed out those that "aren't serious" about running their companies as a business.

Unfortunately, I think this attitude will end up hurting the pdf industry, not helping it. Anything that restricts the growth of new publishers will slow down the growth of the industry. If one of the goals of the new store is to grow the pdf industry, then I think that restricting the available products will be counter-productive.

I wouldn't say so, not entirely. There's actually a few reasons. One thing I'm hoping to add as an added value is a MUCH more customizable publisher page - one that basically can become a sort of web page for publishers. This isn't a barrier for small publishers, this should be a boon for them, if they can't afford their own domains and sites.

Additionally, remember, the shop is going to be paying a portion of the EN World server costs. It is a draw on the system - and will continue to grow into a bigger draw on the resources. Without a fee, I would be paying my share of the server cost out of pocket, and morrus would be paying more out of his. Anyway, also like I said, this had been discussed for some time, with a fairly decent number of rational people coming together and discussing it... the pros and cons... Etc. I'm sure they all came to the right decision - I simply implement it

 

[jmucchiello]

I wouldn't say so, not entirely. There's actually a few reasons. One thing I'm hoping to add as an added value is a MUCH more customizable publisher page - one that basically can become a sort of web page for publishers. This isn't a barrier for small publishers, this should be a boon for them, if they can't afford their own domains and sites.

If they can't afford a domain and a cheap webserver how in heck's name can they come up with $99? I pay $7.77 a month for my website. My domain has cost me $18.99 for two years twice. These up front fees serve me and my products for all sales outlets should I choose to use more than one sales outlet. When I first started, I was paying $3.95 a month for my server but that was before I switched to a PHP-based website.

My starting out outlay was $18.99 for throwingdice.com at godaddy.com and $3.95 for the first month hosting my website also at godaddy. I've switched to powweb.com for better control over PHP/MySQL.

Additionally, remember, the shop is going to be paying a portion of the EN World server costs. It is a draw on the system - and will continue to grow into a bigger draw on the resources. Without a fee, I would be paying my share of the server cost out of pocket, and morrus would be paying more out of his.

And I say again, the setup fee should have no bearing on month-to-month bandwidth costs. That should all be covered by ENGS' sales commission. If it isn't, your financials are totally messed up and you will not sustain yourself as a business. Everytime you say bandwidth is paid for with part of a fee that existing vendors will never pay again makes me cringe.

After all, the big companies you have already signed will be the companies making the most sales and therefore drawing the most bandwidth. If that cost is only covered by the inflow of new publishers then you have setup a pyramid scheme for yourself. That kind of scheme will crumble eventually.

Anyway, also like I said, this had been discussed for some time, with a fairly decent number of rational people coming together and discussing it... the pros and cons... Etc.

And how many of them had the point of view of a small vendor?

I'm sure they all came to the right decision - I simply implement it

I hope you were paid well and in advance.

 

[Morrus]

And I say again, the setup fee should have no bearing on month-to-month bandwidth costs. That should all be covered by ENGS' sales commission. If it isn't, your financials are totally messed up and you will not sustain yourself as a business. Everytime you say bandwidth is paid for with part of a fee that existing vendors will never pay again makes me cringe

This is not the case. Bandwidth is handled separately with an agreement between ENGS and EN World. However, I don't feel comfortable with giving away my entire business plan, and certainly not on a public forum.

Please bear in mind that Chris' role (as he has noted) in the pricing decisions was more on the implementation level. Thought has gone into it, and I am confident that the current structure is viable and in ENGS' long term interests. You, of course, are free to disagree, but you are operating with only a tiny part of the information available, much of which we're not prepared to share at this time.

The important thing is not why ENGS wants to charge in such a way, only whether that charging structure is suitable to you. In your case, it is clearly not, which is fair enough and I wouldnt dream of arguing with you about it - your decision entirely. In some cases, as has already been proved, it is suitable, and those publishers are signing up.