Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 3146795" data-attributes="member: 957">This is certainly true.&nbsp; But I take exception to the word &quot;ill&quot;.&nbsp; Heck, insiders frequently complain that prices are to LOW in this industry.&nbsp; Now they seem to be complaining that they may go up.The storefronts obviously felt a need to make a change.&nbsp; Perhaps the effects of not changing would be much more &quot;ill&quot; than the effects of this will be.You may be forced to raise your prices in order to maintain a worthwhile profit for your efforts.&nbsp; This happens in business all the time.&nbsp; If the customers continue to buy then there is more revenue going into the industry and that is good.&nbsp; If the customers go away then the store fronts will be shown to have pushed beyond what the market will bear and they will suffer for it.&nbsp; And, eventually, things will get back to an equilibrium that the market will support.&nbsp; Obviouly the OBS will need publishers if they want to do business.&nbsp; So clearly they have no desire to run them off.&nbsp; To the contrary, they have a vested interest in keeping them around.&nbsp; But, first and foremost, they have to be creating enough profit to make their own efforts worthwhile.&nbsp; If they are not making enough to make it worth it, then the idea of keeping publishers happy becomes completely moot.&nbsp; Perhaps there is already an effect in place at their level and this is simply a ripple of THAT.&nbsp; Would it be better to have all three decide to throw in the towel?&nbsp; Or what if two give up and the third as the &quot;only remaining game in town&quot; (setting aside e23 and paizo for now) uses that to raise their prices.&nbsp; Would that be any better?&nbsp; I think it would be worse.I keep defending this change.&nbsp; But it isn't from an Pollyanna &quot;everything is wonderful&quot; position.&nbsp; Above all I'm completely commited to the idea that the people who invested in creating these storefronts have ownership of their product and therefore should be free to control them.&nbsp; The effect of removing that ownership would be truly &quot;ill&quot; for future investment.&nbsp; But even beyond that, the marketplace changes and the market has to change to keep up.&nbsp; And not every change has to feel good as it happens.&nbsp; But the best thing for the long term health of the industry is to stay in tune with the changes.&nbsp; I certainly don't want to pay more for pdfs.&nbsp; But I have no illusion that prices at fixed for the foreseeable future.&nbsp; And I can see a collapse or major retraction of the industry as vastly worse than a price shift.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BryonD, post: 3146795, member: 957"] This is certainly true. But I take exception to the word "ill". Heck, insiders frequently complain that prices are to LOW in this industry. Now they seem to be complaining that they may go up. The storefronts obviously felt a need to make a change. Perhaps the effects of not changing would be much more "ill" than the effects of this will be. You may be forced to raise your prices in order to maintain a worthwhile profit for your efforts. This happens in business all the time. If the customers continue to buy then there is more revenue going into the industry and that is good. If the customers go away then the store fronts will be shown to have pushed beyond what the market will bear and they will suffer for it. And, eventually, things will get back to an equilibrium that the market will support. Obviouly the OBS will need publishers if they want to do business. So clearly they have no desire to run them off. To the contrary, they have a vested interest in keeping them around. But, first and foremost, they have to be creating enough profit to make their own efforts worthwhile. If they are not making enough to make it worth it, then the idea of keeping publishers happy becomes completely moot. Perhaps there is already an effect in place at their level and this is simply a ripple of THAT. Would it be better to have all three decide to throw in the towel? Or what if two give up and the third as the "only remaining game in town" (setting aside e23 and paizo for now) uses that to raise their prices. Would that be any better? I think it would be worse. I keep defending this change. But it isn't from an Pollyanna "everything is wonderful" position. Above all I'm completely commited to the idea that the people who invested in creating these storefronts have ownership of their product and therefore should be free to control them. The effect of removing that ownership would be truly "ill" for future investment. But even beyond that, the marketplace changes and the market has to change to keep up. And not every change has to feel good as it happens. But the best thing for the long term health of the industry is to stay in tune with the changes. I certainly don't want to pay more for pdfs. But I have no illusion that prices at fixed for the foreseeable future. And I can see a collapse or major retraction of the industry as vastly worse than a price shift. [/QUOTE]

Verification