KommissarK said:

If the music industry hasn't successfully been able to do this, good luck to gaming.

From where i am sat, the future is in finding a way other than traditional product sales, to make money from your IP products.

That means either getting your fans to support you, or providing them a service rather than a book.

Ways of doing this include patronage projects, or service subscription. Its much harder to pirate a service, or range of services, such as the DnD insider of DnD 4th edition than it is to pirate a book, and you get a relatively predictable, and ongoing monthly income from the line. As for actual books, if a book has covered its costs, and made you a small profit, before it is even been written, then actually, it matters considerably little if individuals pirate it later. By moving to a patronage model, you get the money up front, because the fans believe in the product and want it made, and the they get imput in the creation process, because they put the money in up front.

No industry has brushed up against Internet piracy and remained unchanged.

MILLANDSON said:

What does have fraud to do with a marketing strategy though? Unless you're saying that PDF products lend themselves to such kind of corruption?

Alex

I was suggesting that Catalyst might not have the best grasp of business if they can let almost a million dollars, which is a substantial amount of their earnings, disappear without anyone noticing. If they don't know they had huge amounts of money (for a gaming company) disappearing, they likely as not don't really know how much profit/loss they are making from PDF sales.

MILLANDSON said:

I generally try to avoid relying too much on someone else' perceived general level of capability when trying to assess whether a strategy is promising or not.

Alex

I generally try to avoid relying too much on someone else' perceived general level of capability when trying to assess whether a strategy is promising or not.

So what you're saying is you don't care about the reliability of your source?

Cifer said:

The example at hand has nothing to do with that. Whether Catalyst's strategy was good or not would have to be estimated based on anylsis and results (sales data, etc.), not on whether money had been embezzled or not which is an altogether different, unconnected issue.

If the strategy is sound it won't turn into a bad one because of this fraud.

If the strategy is a bad idea, it wouldn't turn into a good idea if no fraud had been committed.

It would sound a bit lazy if someone would say "Oh, they don't seem to be competent (whether true or not), therefore this strategy is almost certainly a bad idea or not" , akin to preferring to take a short-cut around making an assessment based on an actual investigation of the matter at hand.

I guess all I am saying is that I'd rather stay undecided than jump to conclusions based on loosely connected indications.

Alex

What Millandson was referring to was exactly the fact that the published "results" figures might not be accurate - when it's possible for almost a million dollars to disappear without anyone noticing, chances are that's not the only inaccurate thing in the balance sheet.

Cifer said:

If I wanted to make money disapper in my pocket, would I want to exaggerate or downplay sales?

Alex

zombieneighbours said:

This, I think, is the most telling point and gets into the broader issue of changing media types and as "e-Reader" technology continues to evolve. I'm in no way suggesting that it's going to invalidate books, I just see the issue becoming more and more prominent and challenging to companies involved in publication. While the story of Catalyst Games Lab might be somewhat anecdotal, I'm not sure that blithely dismissing it as a product of the incompetence of their accounts is particularly productive. It would be akin to me dismissing Cifer's comment because his friend happens only to have just finished their training and, thus, are barely qualified or even competent, and then in a different country. That would be a most unworthy response, since a print setup cost is to be expected to contribute to the final cost per unit at the printer and once again merely suggests that it is marketing strategy: the delay in the release of the product maybe geared towards defraying print run costs. Once the period has elapsed, which it probably does in a fairly predictable cycle once products have cycled to resellers, an alternate revenue stream is explored.

All this means, however, is that we're back at square one without actually addressing anything that we didn't already know (or at least think that we know). That is, FFG's business model is predicated around selling print copies, thus the individual interested in PDF exclusively is SoL until FFG feel comfortable adding on the other resource stream. They are at this juncture either unwilling or incapable of exploring alternate options hence honest people must wait or, well, again we're back to square one.

Of course, one has to really wonder how many sales FFG would truly lose and whether this would indicate that their marketing/business strategy is outdated.

Kage

Kage2020 said:

Someone in the company gets paid for making the right decision wrt that; I see no need why I or anyone should armchair quarterback him or her here.

There's some demand, personally I could have seen myself ordering a one hardcopy+several pdfs bundle.

As for the rest, FFG will have to play the game with calling the plays they consider best.

Alex

ak-73 said:

I'm not quite sure when interested discussion became "armchair quarterbacking," though seeing such commentary on these forums does not surprise me. An attempt at reasoned and potentially insightful discussion is undermined by Rather, it expresses an interest in the forces of publication, how they're going to handle the emerging technologies, the influence on the fan base, etc. You can deflect the discussion as "armchair quarterbacking" if you want to, or suggest that it's a criticism of FFG, but I can assure you that it is not. I maintain an active interest in this type of discussion, both as an author (at least in my interest area) and someone that is generally interested in emergent technologies and how they can be applied to specific academic and commercial (well, non-profit) endeavours. If there is an armchair anywhere, you might wish to get out of it. As the metaphor goes, I sit in an office chair and am mixing hobby with work.

Kage

Kage2020 said:

I'm sure armchair quarterbacks all over consider their remarks also just helpful suggestions and interested discussion. :-)

Kage2020 said:

You didn't finish your sentence, I'm afraid. :-) Please go ahead. Anyway, I don't see anything being undermined here. Just one participant, me, who expressed his seeing not much point in leading this debate in FFG' stead. My attitude is like: let them make their business decisions, we'll see whether it will be successful or not. All you can do is give some feedback here whether you like them or not or whether you'd pursue a different strategy. But the choice remains theirs and they surely have spend some thoughts on that already.

Kage2020 said:

Well, I would be surprised if the issue hadn't been discussed by FFG staff. My assumption is that they have been debated this and made the decision that to them it's best for their company to follow the known strategy.

So in that sense debating alternative choices is armchair quarterbacking; for now the decision has been made, the pass has been thrown, how much yards will be gained by it remains to be seen. Whether it would have been better to hand-off the ball to the running back ... that would be talking of the past.

I don't think the forum has much influence of the choice of the next play either, so what's different about this than sitting before your TV and commenting on the game you see?

As for your office chair... you will probably have to make your own decisions for yourself, as FFG had to do for themselves. Your choices will likely be guided by what others have done and which success they have met.

Alex

ak-73 said:

I'm sure they do. This is, however, a discussion forum. If you're not interested then don't click on the thread to commentary that can be construed as passive-aggressive and ultimately aimed at preventing discussion by marginalising that discussion. Admittedly there does seem to be a great deal of that going on at the moment, so I should probably not be surprised.

ak-73 said:

To be honest, I cannot remember my train of thought. The joys of posting when you're working, but I would imagine that it would have been a reference to the type of posting that seems to be prevalent on these boards at the moment. YMMV, though, but it sometimes borders that any questions are treated as heresy against the sacrosanct.

Again, though, if you don't see the discussion as relevant then click away and don't comment. These threads are obviously not influencing or directing FFG policy and everyone is as aware of this as the idea that they're also points where they can push and otherwise generate interest in their products (though it's more overt in some threads over others).

ak-73 said:

Perhaps you are working under the presumption that I feel that discussion is really going to do anything but inform me, or others, of the realities and possibilities? As above, I'm fairly sure that people are aware of this.

ak-73 said:

I cannot be sure that they have, but one would imagine that this is the case. Whether they have extended to consider changing trends in media delivery is up for grabs, but I would once again imagine that they have. It also has little to do with the price of bacon and could be construed as... No, that's another sentence that I'm not going to finish, though deliberately this time.

Incidentally, I'm also very well aware that I will have to make decisions myself or, rather, as one amongst others. It doesn't make it any less worth of a discussion.

Kage

Kage2020 said:

If there is any ambiguity about someone's remarks being passive-aggressive it would stand to reason that one would first ask for clarification about the nature of one's remarks before reacting a perceived passive-aggressive remark in an inappropriate manner. Agreed?

Furthermore a remark that one finds a debate about a given subject as pointless is a valid contribution to said debate.

Additionally such a remark cannot prevent any discussion if the participants are seriously interested in it (as can be seen in the threads about the female SM and the Crusade).

I will agree however that the forum is likely to lead different conversations as soon as the game is out for everyone, the first scenario ideas getting published, etc etc.

Kage2020 said:

No, I won't. If somebody finds a given debate moot, pointless or even ridiculous (as other debates have been called), you will have to bear with another poster expressing such. If the simple act of stating such by a single poster is being considered disruptive of a debate that doesn't put the participants in a favorable light.

I didn't tell people who found the debate about female SMs ridiculous to shut up either, which is essentially what you're telling me here. I'm telling you, you will have to live with people finding some of the debates you engage in to be fairly pointless. And expressing their view too.

Kage2020 said:

In case you didn't follow the closely, people have been debating what FFG could have done or should have done (in their mind). This is good as far as getting some feedback from consumers is concerned. But getting too far into what FFG shoud have done is rather pointless. That is what I have been commenting on with my armchar quarterbacking. Not on the exchange of information on the status quo and possible future in the industry.

Alex

Perhaps you should follow your own advice, ak-73, and ask for clarification. I was not suggesting that you "shut up," having only seen that once on a forum (strangely, here), but rather suggest that it is perhaps better to productively contribute. You've dropped by and said the discussion is pointless, which as you have said is as valid as any other point. You've laid out some truisms, which as the term suggests were somewhat obvious, but sometimes pointing out the obvious can be a good thing so... Well, surely your job is done? I mean, if it is pointless then what would be the point in it all? Waste of your time and all that.

Unless, of course, there's another reason.

Ah well, back to the threads where everyone is gushing...

Kage

Kage2020 said:

"If you're not interested then don't click on the thread to commentary that can be construed as passive-aggressive and ultimately aimed at preventing discussion by marginalising that discussion...."
-

Well, I don't consider posting here a job, I'm just chit-chatting with a bunch of folks who have an interest in the Deathwatch RPG.

-

"Unless, of course, there's another reason."

If you have sth on your mind, please share it with the world. :-)

ak-73 said:

Actually, allegedly the boss (since he was one of the people who ran the accounts) changed figures around so it made it look like it was costing more to print books, etc, than it actually was, and was exaggerating what stock they had remaining, rather than how much they sold.

As such, we have no idea whether their figures are accurate, or whether they have been fiddled up or down. Merely saying what you said doesn't change the fact that the figures can't, in any way, be trusted, one way or the other.

As such, they are useless. I would, however, be happy to accept your statement if you were to find the financial figures (most public companies have these available to the public if you look hard enough for them) of a company that wasn't allegedly run by a fraud who has made his company's financial records inaccurate to the point they are useless as evidence that proved that PDF sales at the same time or before print release makes a company more money without impacting on print sales.

MILLANDSON said:

And all I was saying was that the fact that money had been embezzled doesn't lead me to think that their strategy of selling pdfs wasn't a good one.

Alex

This guy knows a little thing or two about publishing in general, this not being game related par se it does how ever deal with epublishing and its a good read .

MILLANDSON said:

UncleArkie said:

In fairness, the traditional publishing industry has very little in common with RPG publishing when it comes to PDF.

We have specialist venders, and multiple big name RPG publishers supporting PDF, as well as a host of PDF-only publisher.

That's really a separate issue and has very little to do with the success of their PDF releases.

Well, it does suggest that a balance that is known to have been tampered with shouldn't be considered evidence for anything than tampering - certainly not the success or failure of a business strategy.

UncleArkie said:

That's an interesting article and one which, I feel, establishes many of the contributed points being made in the thread already (YMMV, of course, and that's fair enough). Anecdotally I find it interesting that RPGs are lumped in with technical manuals/scientific texts since that is exactly where I'm coming from. There's nothing quite as frustrating as having to take half your weight in forensic anthropology textbooks and be able to take other things that you might need. Like clothes. Thus my own wait for entering into the ebook market in a stand alone "device" (to borrow Stross' term) is moderated by certain functions that happen to transfer between technical manuals and RPG manuals—dual screen view (like a book!), haptic interface (like a book!), touchscreen/pen input (sorta like a book... errr, maybe not... please don't write in books ), and some other widgets would be just great (webcam, browser, blah blah). And, of course, transferability between devices and not having to worry too much about DRM since, after all, I'm an honest person and would buy the content legally.

With that said, I found the comments more revealing than anything else. One of the things that DR was talking out, admittedly primarily from me nerding out, was that in many ways fan "publications" are seen as the "lesser of two weevils," meaning that it is used because self-evidently physical publication and distribution is not permissible. Solution? Turn the electronic publication, which is made without challenge to copyright (all standard disclaimers, etc.), into a strength rather than a weakness. For wireless or otherwise connected devices (well, maybe not eReaders) you have the ability to turn static content into something far more dynamic. Dead-tree pictures become Flash animations, icons means to play sounds, etc. Of course, I'm not saying that this is a possibility for FFG for a wide number of reasons, and am just pointing out that electronic media do have other options in terms of "community" and pushing certain materials.

That's an aside, though, since content-rich media is a completely separate issue as is, as zombieneighbours points out, much of the commentary from Stross' 'blog since it seems so heavily geared towards the novel market and not the technical/RPG manual where we find ourselves (where such issues as layout are significant, even if the degree is an arguable point). Thus, issues of production cost might seem less relevant when FFG would surely be recouping such loss from sales to resellers? One imagines that if Amazon are charging $x and order n-units at $y, perhaps at a discounted price per unit, then x < n/y. Amazon makes up for decreased sale price (x) by increased sales volume, which also gets into the comments about Steam and the cumulative effects of those reductions in terms of unit sales (note a different medium of course). One might argue that this is similar to "impulse purchase" as noted above?

As suggested in the Stross' 'blog, perhaps it is just a reflection of an older publication standard that just hasn't caught up with modern demands (though FFG have come along way from GW!)? Or equally, a conflation of the extent of "modern demands." Would simultaneous release seriously impact upon returns (i.e. what proportion of individuals want PDF exclusively)? Or is it just a case of lower print runs? Are FFG releasing PDF at less than the production cost of a physical book, discounting cost of printing itself? It seems unlikely, in which case the suggestion that simultaneous release only really cuts into print run overhead if there is a significant trend of the market shifting to PDF that would catch them wrong-footed in terms of projected sales vs. print run numbers. That would royally suck given the state of the RPG industry, so one could certainly understand a degree (even a large degree) of trepidation about a more substantial move over to PDF sales.

Piracy, the issue that initiated this aspect of the discussion, doesn't seem to be quite the iceberg that was initially suggested (despite it being wrong and, no, people should not engage or otherwise promote piracy of any product). It has been shown, even anecdotally or through hearsay, that the measures employed to prevent it are largely if not entirely ineffective, and those that are employed often end up annoying the hell out of paying customers. I note with relevance to the thread that Stross asserts:

Charles Stross said >>>

DRM doesn't inconvenience pirates — indeed, over time it trains law-abiding users to become pirates out of sheer frustration.

Although not DRM-related per se , isn't this just what the poster who initiated the verbally violent postings merely trained into their actions by sheer frustration? This doesn't mean that they should be lauded for it, rather it indicates that the dual release schedule trains them to become pirates because unless they way to own the dead tree version they are "forced" to pirate until the legally acquirable PDF comes for sale, in which case they can ditch it and the company gets the money that the punter wanted to give them in the first place.

I used "forced" because of the arguments about RPG goods being luxury items and being "forced" means that it is a case of survival. Forgive me, but within the context of the niche hobby that we found ourselves in, I'm not entirely sure of the relevance of that argument. Of course it is not required, but then neither is the hard copy book and the days when people who photocopy the beggars. That is not the question/discussion in hand since piracy in all of its forms is wrong, and in some ways that particular argument can act as a bit of a red herring.

Does the dual-release schedule "train" otherwise honest punters to becoming pirates, even if temporarily? The original person that suggested this is what they would do would, I believe, say yes. It doesn't make it any less wrong, but there you have it. The real question seems to be whether PDF sales are going to significantly cut into the dead tree versions and whether this would require a shift, even a paradigm shift, in the business model.

And that's where I get completely out of my depth rather than just mostly out of my depth.

Kage

The problem with the pirate mentality conditioning is that the company loses out when its on a dual release because most pirates who download a scanned version of the book will for most parts then not buy the oef, why should they, their current digital copy lets them read the material, print sections and so on, true a few honest and law abiding ones will pay, but the majority wont.

Then the counter argument is that by a large a group will play a game and maybe one or two or three members of the group will have a pirated book, try it out and then generate revenue for the company, but by a large players have a tendency to not buy the book, they will borrow it off the game master or use the pdf, why, because its cheaper and they only needed for a day or two to create a character. The zeist is that we don't know where the layouted ebook is going or if its even going anywhere, personally I like my dead tree version.

I'm sorry, but that seems to have already been refuted as a non-issue, at least with regards to honest people. True pirates aren't going to buy a hardcopy version, nor are they going to buy the official PDF. Historically, or so I've been told, most game materials can be found in the places where one looks for such things, about two weeks after the release. So all it is doing is hurting those that don't want a hardcopy and do want an electronic copy. From the above arguments, FFG are not really losing out on the PDF even if they might not be reaping as much as they could.

Also, the player-purchase issue has been shown only to be an issue for those that want to own the game, so using that as an idea about distribution of the game equally lacks traction. (What difference from GMs that used to photocopy the appropriate sections, and now might hand out PDF sections).

So, yeah. Again, still not advocating piracy.

Kage