Is the Age of Hardcover Gluttony over?

I like Paizo's approach of three or four a year. Even at $30 - $50 that is sustainable to my wallet. And that there are no splats (rules splats, that is) is great. The hardcover glut is a big reason why I dropped D&D when 3.5 came out and didn't pick it back up until Pathfinder. The game just became too bloated in terms of the impact on my wallet and my shelf space.

As for whether the age is over I don't know. The economy being crap is definitely generating a lot of noise in trying to figure out if this is a real shift or not. Wizards, however, will need to find a way to make up the lost revenue. Right now it seems as if it may be boxed sets and card-based supplements. Maybe we'll see even more softcover splats to make up for the margins the hardcovers had. Will be interesting, at least.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Taking your question isolated from anything else, of course--or at least in general. But there are other factors. For example, would you rather have two $30 hardcovers or three $20 softcovers? Are you happy spending $30 on a book like Arcane Power which has a lot of filler crunch, aka stuff you don't absolutely need, especially if you have D&DI?

Well, this is hard to answer without specifics. However, my general answer would be that I would rather spend $90 on three hardcovers than $60 on three softcovers. If a book is of interest, I am happy to pay the premium. Hardcovers cost more, but I will pay more. Conversely, making books softcover to make them cheaper is a losing proposition with me; I like the book less, so the price at which I will purchase it is much, much lower. Unless you simply cannot justify the size of the print run, selling softcovers will make you less money with customers like me.

Conversely, if I don't feel something is all that useful, I won't buy it new at all. I'll just buy it used. And I still prefer hardcover. Or I might wait until you declare bankrupcy and buy it for $3 as a PDF on RPGnow while you're in the process of liquidating. I don't buy expensive things just because they exist.

So, in my view, the reason to make something softcover is either that it is part of a ridiculously small print run but is still intensely interesting to a certain niche, or because the book is very short. I think as a generality it stands up well. I know that GURPS embraced the hardcover to great success; however, they also had to reduce some hardcover releases when the economics didn't hold up for less popular titles.
 

Worst binding of all time: AD&D Unearthed Arcana. Are there even copies out there that are intact?

Mine is in great shape. Even though I used it quite frequently, its virtually pristine.

Now, would it be so if I treated it like my AD&D DMG, PHB & MM, which are all currently held together with masking tape covering their spines? Can't say.
 


Hardcovers for the win

Softcovers fall apart, the cost difference is minimal. Wizards needs to focus on content and decent layout and keep the hardcover price competitive and the book content high value.

I much prefer hardcovers, the quality and durability of a hardcover binding far exceeds staple bindings or trade paper glue bindings. Yeah paperbacks are a little cheaper, but you get what you pay for. Some people are ok carrying around rags, but I prefer quality - just my taste.

Why not have hardback core books (as they have been doing), and keep the modules, and smaller splat books paperback. That seems a nice mix. Moving to softbound core books would suck in my opinion. I think it is a bad idea to print the shadow power book in soft cover. That would be better as a hard cover.
 


I'm not sure where this printing obsession with hardcover format has come from.

Simple: Enough people are willing to pay more for hardbacks that publishers make more money on them.

In many cases, for small publishers, "make more money on them" actually means "make any money on them at all". (John Nephew of Atlas Games had a post on, IIRC, RPGNet about a decade ago that talked about this in specific budgetary terms.)

Because publishing a book in hardback often meant that a small publisher could afford to publish the book at all, a lot of small publishers moved to hardbacks.

How did this affect WotC? Well, in the early days of 3rd Edition they were getting out-competed in terms of perceived value. WotC released a bunch of softcover class supplements only to see other publishers releasing hardcover class supplements.

What happens next? 3.5 is launched 1-2 years earlier than originally planned, allowing WotC to reboot their supplement lines as hardbacks.

Fast-forward to 2010 and WotC's policies have essentially eliminated direct 3rd party competition for their books. And softcovers return. (At WotC's volumes, they can sell the softcovers at a lower price point and, hopefully, recoup the difference in higher sales.)

Of course, part of the reason the move to hardcovers was necessary in the first place is because RPG fans aren't willing to pay reasonable prices for RPG books. (With "reasonable" being defined here in terms of "a price at which the publishers can actually make a livable wage based on how much it costs to produce the book and how many copies it can sell".) This is particularly true with softcover books, which I'm guessing most people are expecting to pay around $20 for if they have a page count around 150-300 pages.

In other words, they want to pay the same price for a softcover RPG book that they were paying in 1990. Despite the fact that:

(1) Inflation alone means that a $20 book in 1990 should be retailing for $35 in 2010.

(2) Costs in the publishing industry have actually risen far faster than in the economy as a whole (largely due to the increased price of paper). (Which is why the average price of a paperback book has tripled in price over the past twenty years.)

(3) RPG books aren't selling anywhere near the same volume that they were selling in 1990 (which means that creative costs need to be amortized over fewer copies sold).

None of which is to say that people should pay more than they think the product is worth. But if you're still calibrating your expectations of what an RPG book "should" cost off 1990 (or even 2000) prices, then I'm afraid you're deluding yourself.
 

If we're talking personal preferences here I think that game books need to stop being about art/marketing and start being about playing a game again. It's particularly ridiculous when you pay 20-40 dollars for a book that's a couple hundred pages and pull out the text, put it in a word doc, and organize it in a three-ring binder by topic for ease of play and you've got 45 pages of useful information because the typesetting and art take up so much of the work.

While you can choose to abuse yourself in any manner you prefer, the publishers have to try to provide a pleasant reading experience for the consumer. Good typesetting makes a substantial difference for readability. Cramming everything into as small a space as possible generally makes the readability terrible.
 



Remove ads

Top