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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Sigil" data-source="post: 190640" data-attributes="member: 2013">Re: Re: 2 cents...This is a valid concern on the part of the publisher... you know that if an RPGer wants to do research, it's a good idea to show him all the extras.  This is a reason that a link would be good, and one presumes that providing such a link will increase sales.  It is one argument for keeping a link, though I believe that alone it does not outweigh the argument for removing the link (that the inconvenience of returning will deny RPGNow.com a given sale).I follow your reasoning; it stands to reason that without a link the publisher will make fewer sales from RPGNow.com.  My question would be, "but does he make fewer overall sales?"  IOW, if not getting me a link "costs" me, say, 25 sales at RPGNow.com per month BUT those 25 people find my site on their own and buy from me, does that change the total number of sales I get.  Yes, you may get fewer sales at RPGNow.com, but the real question is, "does it affect your overall sales from all outlets?"  I don't know if there CAN be a definitive answer to that one. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I agree that the policy does seem to reward publishers who use RPGNow exclusively.  I am not so sure it is a strongarm tactic to gain a monopoly, however - it seems to me that it may just as well be interpreted as, "in order to maintain viability, we have to do this or we will go under."  As far as a monopoly goes, I don't think the wording is sufficiently strong to warrant that - if the wording was, "if you carry your products elsewhere, we won't carry your products at all," I would see your point.  As it is, I think it is a little less harsh.I can't dispute that this was your feeling - after all, I can't tell you how to feel. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />So you are trying to see both sides of the issue.  Not surprising - you have always shown a great degree of level-headedness and reasonableness. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />And, look what we have, a proposal for a solution.  *applauds*  Good job, Darrin!  I hadn't even thought of this one, myself, but it seems reasonable (even if a little more effort is required on everyone's part).Would this be the perfect solution?  Who knows?  But at the very least, we have a proposed solution rather than just griping.  That's why I don't worry too much about Darrin's complaints - he is trying to open discussion rather than flamewars. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Until I'm not, so am I. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />--The Sigil</blockquote>

Verification