Full time game designers

[Valamir]

In this thread

When you underprice your product vs. what the market would pay and is paying for similar works, you're hurting everyone who is making those other works at the higher price.

Every time you meet a fellow game designer who is doing it "for a living", that is, paying the rent, buying food, insuring a family, etc. on income from game design, think about the fact that you choosing to price a great product at a low price means that person will have a harder time earning that paycheck.

I find this to be a very interesting and very unusal perspective.  It seems to be rather internally self contradictory to my sensibilities and I thought it a topic worth exploring.  

For instance, some have been pretty critical of comments on the Forge that question the "industry's" status as an actual industry.  Yet I can think of no industry in the western world where any consideration whatsoever would be given to the impact of business decisions on other companies employees.  When Walmart marks down its everyday low prices it doesn't care two figs about how this impacts the employees of other retailers who are trying to make a living.

Yet here is one of the leading figures in our industry making such a comment.

For me this sort of high lights the split personality of this business that can't seem to make up its mind whether its a real "industry" or a collection of close associates and grass roots hobbyists.  I'd be interested in hearing more from Ryan on what he meant by the comment.



On a related note, from my perspective, I hypothesize that adventure gaming would be alot better off if there were fewer people trying to make a living at it to begin with.  The necessity of getting a regular paycheck sufficient (if barely) to put food on the table IMO has led to alot of less than optimal decisions about game design and publishing practices.  I'm left wondering how much different (better?) the hobby would be if more people gave up the effort, got real jobs to pay the bills, and stuck to game design as a supplementary side venture.

I'd find it an interesting comparison to identify a list of games which were predominately written or published by people working full time (or nearly full time) in the hobby, and compare it to a list of games which were prediminately written or published by people whose principle source of income was "regular" employment who published the game as a labor of love.

Thoughts?

[John Burdick]

For instance, some have been pretty critical of comments on the Forge that question the "industry's" status as an actual industry.  Yet I can think of no industry in the western world where any consideration whatsoever would be given to the impact of business decisions on other companies employees.  When Walmart marks down its everyday low prices it doesn't care two figs about how this impacts the employees of other retailers who are trying to make a living.

The software industry has the established companies using a similar argument against free software. Here is an example addressing global IP "devaluation" by free software as a "neutron bomb" to America's economy. The articles are not expected to stop companies like IBM from supporting free software. I'm not really sure what they intend.

Although I made the analogy to Ryan's observation, I don't hold the same attitude toward his sincere thoughts that I do towards the manipulations of Microsoft and their kind. I agree with him that confusing the real price of things doesn't help anyone.

John

[DevP]

Yet I can think of no industry in the western world where any consideration whatsoever would be given to the impact of business decisions on other companies employees.

I think the right economic model for is some kind of "environmental capitalism". So, everyone going for their own piece competitively, sure, but we have to pay greater attention (than elsewhere) abou the environmental impacts of our choices because the niche is so damn small. I think the solidarity thing is still in effect as there are still enough avenues where cooperation is more profitable than consolidation.

On a related note, from my perspective, I hypothesize that adventure gaming would be alot better off if there were fewer people trying to make a living at it to begin with.

On the otherhand, by making a fulltime living off RPGs, they've proven that there is a fulltime career to be had in RPGs. (Um, tautologically.)

'Nother interesting thought: lots of incomes get depressed because, for example, workers are eager enough to work that they dont' appropriately negotiate up their wages. Our hobby is still where we'll sacrifice lots of personal benefit in hoping to take part in the hobby; doing so, we make it harder to turn a profit perhaps (even if we're having fun).

[daMoose_Neo]

Well, too, games are a selective bunch. Not just any game will do for any everyone.
Regarding WalMart, Pillows are pillows. Video games are video games.
The software model is a better example: we have creating vs. retailing.
So WalMark marks down Dove face soap. Dove still makes their money off Target. Target loses out on some sales yea, but the manufacturer is still making their money.
Just because I put out a game at $5 doesn't mean its going to impact say Luke and his Burning Wheel - BW rocks, my game would most certainly suck if I just threw it out. Just because its low price doesn't mean people are going to flock to it.

[wakingjohn]

I hear this alot in reference to artwork.

It seems to me what its saying is more like:

Burning Wheel is a very good game, and it is underpriced.  If someone were to put out an 'equal quality' game at a 'fair' price in the same market (say non-d20 indie rpgs) the lower priced game will certainly drive people to buy burning wheel instead of the 'normal' priced same quality rpg.

It seems the idea is its not so much 'throwing out cheap materials', but people doing it as a hobby adn creating GOOD stuff for cheap that hurts the one who does it as a living.  

That said, I'm not sure this is even true.  However assuming it is, theres no reason to think this is morally reprehensible behavior as long as one is living in a capitalistic society.  This is just bad luck for the fair priced rpg and the investor of in the rpg knew that they were up against luck when they went into business.   I will say it is somewhat unfair to the loser, however thats the arena they choose to play in.

Now in an ideal world, I would agree that its wrong and unfair to price lower than the market bears, but unfortunately its not an ideal world.

I think this happens more often in the RPG making business because it often is the hobby of whoever is running the project/game/etc and many times it is a labor of love.  But then again, thats just a random opinion of mine.

Just what I think, based on little-to-no experience. ;-)

[Valamir]

I copied this post from the other thread, because my response doesn't really belong in a thread about Luke's game.

The only additional point I'd like to make is that the issue I raised (low price vs. peer compensation) is directly related to the difference between publishing "for a living" and publishing "for a hobby".

It is a normally valid assumption that the market will tend to keep prices of RPGs high enough to justify the costs to make them and support the people who make them (or cause innovation on the cost side to make them cheaper which could allow a lower price in theory). But one of the assumptions in that model is that all the publishers have the same cost basis - that is, they all have roughly the same kinds of expenses and needs.

A unique situation develops when a small-press, vanity-press or art-press product gets enough attention to come onto the radar of a larger segment of buyers (ala Alliance distribution). Now a product produced under one model (profit not relevant or far less important) will be compared apples to apples with products where profit is critical.

In a worst case scenario, enough small-vanity-art press products get enough attention that the general SRP of products has to drop substantially, and a lot of RPG designers are fired and companies go bankrupt. It is not likely, in my opinion, that the small-vanity-art press community can continue to push the quality and utility bars for RPG products through their own efforts, and the loss of a lot of full-time designers and for-profit publishers would have the net effect of removing a lot of cool and important work from the market that could not be otherwise replaced.

That's an extreme, and extremely unlikely scenario, but there is something to be said for the general price resistence factor in the market being affected by small-vanity-art products that do "break through", and the publishers of those products do, I think, bear some responsibility for the impact they have on the overall perception of "fair price".

I think the biggest misunderstanding in both the small press world and the consumer world is the idea that an individual RPG product can be priced based on its costs. In reality, each publisher has to invest capital in new work, and some of that investment will be lost. It is money at risk, and the risk is high. RPG products have to pay the costs of that risk in the form of gross margins. If a company did nothing but break even on the stuff it sold, it would be killed the first time something it invested in failed to sell. A well run company is always working to build a reserve fund, a contingency that allows it to survive a bad knock in the market. The capital to make continued investments can only come from either outside money or gross margins, and since most RPG companies have no outside money, de facto, it comes from gross margin.

That's the key difference between an small-vanity-art press release and a "commercial" release - the need for the commercial release to make more profit than absolutely necessary to break even. And if companies didn't make that money, they'd be a great risk of failure, and would fail, and that would, in my opinion, be a bad thing for the art, science and hobby of roleplaying games.

Umm, Ryan?  I'm not sure how relevant your last post is really.  Lumping small press with vanity press seems to be a completely inaccurate assumption.

The pricing of a small press title has less to do with profit not being critical, and more to do with a publication model that doesn't include alot of unnecessary expenses to make up for.  Many indie-games have a per unit profit margin that commercial games would envy.

In a worst case scenario, enough small-vanity-art press products get enough attention that the general SRP of products has to drop substantially, and a lot of RPG designers are fired and companies go bankrupt. It is not likely, in my opinion, that the small-vanity-art press community can continue to push the quality and utility bars for RPG products through their own efforts, and the loss of a lot of full-time designers and for-profit publishers would have the net effect of removing a lot of cool and important work from the market that could not be otherwise replaced.

I really don't see this at all.  Why couldn't small press companies putsh the quality and utility bars?  What quality and utility bars are "commercial" companies pushing that small press couldn't?  Further and more to the point, the idea that a lot of cool and important work would be removed  from the market baffles me.  Rather, I think, a lot of cool and important work would get created in the evenings and on weekends by the very same people who do it now.  In fact, I guarentee it.  Nobody is in the game industry for the money.  Therefor very nearly nobody would stop creating when the money got less.  They'd just start doing it in between the working hours of other employment.

In fact, I think this would RAISE the quality and utility bar.  IMO the pace of publication today is far to fast.  The "gotta get it out the door so we can start making money to pay our employees" mentality would be replaced with "this ain't going out the door until I'm satisfied the product is as high a quality as I can make it".  Innovation IMO would be increased dramatically because the current crop of commercial designers would no longer have to concentrate on making product "that sells" (which normally means not taking many risks and making product that looks just like the last product that sold) and instead could put their prodigious talents to work on projects that they actually want to do, no matter how unusual they may seem.

Further, I'd suggest that the current commercial designer who would in fact quit designing all together if he could no longer make a living at it, would be no great loss.  Because to me such an attitude clearly means they really don't love what they're doing enough for me to be worried that if they stopped doing it I miss out on their next creation.  If they did love it enough, they'd do it no matter what the money was.  Gaming was grass roots and Alarums & Excusions long before it was commercial.  And it would survive just fine without the commercial aspects.

[mearls]

Further, I'd suggest that the current commercial designer who would in fact quit designing all together if he could no longer make a living at it, would be no great loss.

So it's OK for a printer, an ISP, a retail store, a shipping company, a warehouse, or a distributor to make a fair, living wage off of an RPG product, but not a designer? A designer who wants to earn a viable income is automatically disqualified from participating in an economic chain?

I think that if you want to fly this flag, you don't have a right to charge anything for your game. If you really are doing it for the love of making a game, don't charge anything. As soon as you charge a single cent for your work, you've betrayed that love.

In other words, where exactly does the line go? And why this obsession devaluing creative endeavors? We never demand that people pump gas for the love of it, or stock shelves in a department store with nothing but pure, noble intentions.

The following isn't directed at anyone in particular. It's the sort of thing that I think a lot of people will consider a somewhat crackpot theory, but it's my theory and I'm sticking by it.

I have a theory, one based on coming from a lower middle class family and graduating from the upper class world of an Ivy League institution. I think that the pernicious belief that mingling money and creative endeavors is a bad thing is a natural byproduct of class warfare. The richer you are, the easier it is to devote spare time to painting, writing, or whatever. You don't have to worry about paying the bills, and you aren't engaged in the type of deadening work that leaves you unable to do much aside from eat, watch TV, and sleep every week night. The filthy commons, the sort that could devote more time, effort, and energy to art if they could only shift some of their financial burden on to it, are dead center in the sights of this claim.

In short, not everyone has the educational and economic opportunities needed to devote time and energy required of a good design. Some would be forced into career paths that would erect obstacles too great for them to overcome.

I think the ability to earn a comfortable living through a creative endeavor is a powerful enabler that can uncork hidden talents, reserves of creativity, and undiscovered ideas. If you can devote your entire life to your work, not just the spare hours away from work and family, it stands to reason that your work will be better for it.

[daMoose_Neo]

Points to both.
I'd warrent the comments about dropping out of the running stem from the truly commercial endevours: something NOT created as a work of art or because of conviction, but some carbon-copy thing stamped off the presses simply to turn a profit, or what one can of it.
I truly admire someone who can take their love and make a living off of it. I would LOVE to do that myself, and hope to. I LOTHE people who just do it for the sake of doing it- THOSE, in my mind would be the ones everyone could stand to live without. The "games" or "supplements" that are nothing but rehashed, reprinted, regurgitated material and ideas seen for the past century or what not.
That goes for everything~ From the next d20 uber supplement or game to the calculated boy-bands or emo-bands~ I *HATE* "Calculated Creativity" - its an oxymoron yes, but thats what a lot of major commercial endevours become- calculated attempts at "creativity", crafting something not because its new, different or entertaining but will reach more customers (not even people or players- CUSTOMERS).

rule of thumb: Profit, Revenue, Income, doesn't matter- do you serve players or customers?

[Valamir]

Valamir wrote:
Further, I'd suggest that the current commercial designer who would in fact quit designing all together if he could no longer make a living at it, would be no great loss.


So it's OK for a printer, an ISP, a retail store, a shipping company, a warehouse, or a distributor to make a fair, living wage off of an RPG product, but not a designer? A designer who wants to earn a viable income is automatically disqualified from participating in an economic chain?

I think that if you want to fly this flag, you don't have a right to charge anything for your game. If you really are doing it for the love of making a game, don't charge anything. As soon as you charge a single cent for your work, you've betrayed that love.

In other words, where exactly does the line go? And why this obsession devaluing creative endeavors? We never demand that people pump gas for the love of it, or stock shelves in a department store with nothing but pure, noble intentions.

Hey Mearls, that's not what I said at all.  Read the context again.

What I said was if there were a designer who makes a living designing games today, and if that designer were suddenly unable to make a living designing games full time any more, that most such designers would go on designing games anyway because they love the hobby.  The designer who'd completely turn his back on the hobby if he couldn't do it full time is the designer who'd be no great loss.  

As for needing to do it full time in order to tap into some full creative spirit I don't follow that logic at all.  Are you suggesting that if a game designer couldn't make a living doing game design that the only job they'd be able to get is some mind numbing menial labor that leaves them spiritually and creatively drained?  That notion seems fairly ridiculous to me given the large number of people I know engaged in game design from a wide range of walks of life.


In any case, my comments are not suggesting that you don't have the right to be compensated for your work.  My comments were directly aimed at the notion put forth by Ryan that its only those who receive sufficient compensation for their work to live on who are responsible for driving the "quality and utility" bars in the hobby.  A notion which I completely disagree with.

But there is a substantial difference in my mind between the right to be compensated for your work and the expectation that you deserve to be compensated enough to earn a living at it.  The moment a commercial designer starts compromising the artistic integrity of their design because of financial necessity is the moment one can no longer claim that the commercial game designers are the ones driving the "quality and utility" bars.

But I've never done paid freelance work Mearls, so you tell me.  Can you honestly say that you've never had to compromise any of your work for commercial reasons?  Have you never had to choose between designing the game you felt in your heart should have been designed vs. collecting the paycheck you were paid to collect?  Is there no book you've ever done that looking back on it you would have done it differently if you hadn't had commercial obligations to fulfill?  Has everything that's been published with your name on it fully and completely realized your vision for it?  Ideally that would be so.

The occasional yes answer is to be expected, and not really a big deal.  But there comes a point where if enough commercial designers are answering yes to the above questions frequently enough that the hobby as a whole is harmed by it.  At that point, the hobby would be better off (from an artistic integrity perspective) with less of a focus on "making a living" and more of a focus on allowing the designers design the game they really want to design...because chances are, IMO anyway, the game they really want to design if they had no financial needs to fulfill would be much better than the game they actually did design because they had deadlines to meet and the expectations of a commercial publisher to adhere to.

Are we at that point yet?  Well, opinions will certainly differ on that, but when I see a game line like the B5 game line from Mongoose suffering horribly because of some mandate to crank out a book a month...and I see the names of authors on those books whose work I know from repeated past experience to be pretty piss poor (as in "never buy anything from that guy, he's horrible")...and when I know that the primary reason that guy gets hired is because he can spew forth 200 pages in a month like clockwork...and when I see that the publisher doesn't really care that those 200 pages suck ass, as long as they can slap a cover on it and sell the damn thing...well...then yes I start to form an opinion on whether we're at that point now.  Whether the need to maintain cashflow levels to pay for employees and office space and product licenses isn't actually interfering with publishing quality games.

[contracycle]

I think the argument is overly romantic.  There is indeed a rush to the bottom incommercial endeavors, and underpricing a product does - must - have a knock-on effect on other similar products.  And this applies in all fields, for it is the same phenomenon as drives international outsourcing to developing world economies.

I note this 'vocational' argument has been frequently used to justifay wage cuts, especially in public services.  The argument goes that jobs like teaching and nursing are badly under-paid for the levels of commitment and training they require, because this work is 'vocational' and 'they're not doing it for the money'.  And the result of THAT has been that these jobs become discounted, disrespected, and the people whose talents wopuld be most valuable in this arena frequently go into other fields where they can make a decent living.

So sure - WallMart doesn't give a fig.  But lots of people affected by WallMart's strategy do.   Equally, I don't see why those people should have to give a fig for WallMarts rationale - its impact is real regardless of the commercial logic, and those affected are entitled to pursue just as narrow and self-serving a commercial interest as they do.

Yes, I would rather there were full time professionals who did this for a living.  Yes, I do think that it is smart (not moral or right) for producers to consider the impact their decisions have on other producers, and that perpetually undercutting one another is a recipe only for the race to the bottom.  We will ultimately all lose out that way - and that applies to WallMart as much as RPG.

I'm not defending the present model in toto by any means.  But I do not think that it is an unreasonable aspiration for people to want to be paid for the things that they do and to try to do those things that they love full time.  And if corners are cut for commercial necessity - well, thats the way capitalism works, too bad so sad.  Thats the alleged 'discipline' of the market at work.

As for needing to do it full time in order to tap into some full creative spirit I don't follow that logic at all. Are you suggesting that if a game designer couldn't make a living doing game design that the only job they'd be able to get is some mind numbing menial labor that leaves them spiritually and creatively drained? That notion seems fairly ridiculous to me given the large number of people I know engaged in game design from a wide range of walks of life.

Thats is what is keeping us in hobby/vanity press status.  I think this observation is unremarkable - of course the majority of people fully engaged in a real job thats putting bread in their mouths will, must, prioritise this activity over some art hobby, whatever that may be.  What makes this a different sort of compromise of artistic integrity to that carried out by a publisher that needs to ship by X date?  Money talks, bullshit walks, and we can wish for creative geniuses who write RPG's with one hand and cure cancer with the other, but it is not going to happen on any meaningful scale.  If we want the good people, as with nurses and teachers, we have to pay them, not rely on their charity and altruism.

[Jack Aidley]

For instance, some have been pretty critical of comments on the Forge that question the "industry's" status as an actual industry. Yet I can think of no industry in the western world where any consideration whatsoever would be given to the impact of business decisions on other companies employees. When Walmart marks down its everyday low prices it doesn't care two figs about how this impacts the employees of other retailers who are trying to make a living.

First off, it's quite common for working programmers and software companies to attack the Open Source movement in this way, so we're not the only folks. Some more established industries are carefully constructed to prevent their trades being so devalued (doctors, actors and lawyers spring to mind). Secondly, WalMart is an evil and destructive company, just because they have no morals or ethics is no reason for anyone else to follow - they're just a bad example and will be first against the wall when my revolution comes.

It's not just folks trying to make a living who suffer if the price of RPGs falls, its also the sideline-publishers. Instead of being able to make a bit of cash, pay for art, pay for future printruns and experiment a bit, your small publishers will either have to become vanity-press operations or kowtow to comercial priorities. I don't think this would be a good thing.

[Luke]

Well, too, games are a selective bunch. Not just any game will do for any everyone.
Regarding WalMart, Pillows are pillows. Video games are video games.
The software model is a better example: we have creating vs. retailing.
So WalMark marks down Dove face soap. Dove still makes their money off Target. Target loses out on some sales yea, but the manufacturer is still making their money.

I'm sorry, I know this is a little off-topic, but what you're saying is actually untrue. Walmart's pricing model puts both its competitors and its manufacturers out of business (in the US). I'd wager that Dove (if they are sold at Walmart) outsource their manufacturing overseas.

An interesting article detailing the phenomena:
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html

Back on topic: it is possible for low pricing by one manufacturer (or even retailer, in the case of walmart), to drive its competitors into the ground. Is this a good thing in RPGs? Well, most of us here are American so we all huff, "Competition's good for ya, 'course it is!"  But I wonder if there is another side to it as Ryan suggested.

-L

[daMoose_Neo]

Some more established industries are carefully constructed to prevent their trades being so devalued (doctors, actors and lawyers spring to mind).

*A quick aside* Actors? Unless we're talking SCREEN actors here, that doesn't quite fit. Its difficult to break into acting because there are so many actors out there. In fact, I'd actually link acting to whats going on in the RPG 'industry'.

1) To make get into the 'industry' you have to be well known. To get well known in the 'industry', you typically have to have a big product  IN THE INDUSTRY. Ditto for actors guilds and acting in general.

2) All sorts of people are doing it because, on the surface, its easy to do. Joe walks up, thinks he can act(write). If he happens to be at the right place at the right time he can land a role (Mongoose's authors).

3) FEW people actually make a living acting. Those who do do it through Hollywood. Stage actors typically work waiter/waitress jobs wherever they can. Ditto for RPG development- with the rare exception (I do believe there is a couple here), this is a spare time, wee hours of the night hobby for almost everyone else here.

Researched going into stage acting. Not a pretty thing. All sorts of people have the talent but go completly overlooked for years on end. Some lucky ones get a shot at a role, but for the most part people are relegated to the supporting cast and crew. Broadway in fact is visious. Actors are so common the directors and producers have no qualm canning you if you miss one or two practices. They'll just grab someone else who so rabidly wants the job they already have the piece memorized, blocked and performing it without fault.

[Bankuei]

Hi folks,

Has anyone considered what really sells games?  Price is A factor, but not THE factor.  Gamers are a pretty well off bunch.  Sure, they might not be able to buy both game A and game B today, but if they're really interested, they will get game B down the line, probably in a few months, actually.  And rpgs have a fairly long shelf life.

What determines popularity is more based on marketing and name brand than anything else.  D&D will always sell, even if someone finds a way to do "D&D better" much in the same way MS Office sells, even though there are many other options out there.  There are plenty of games you can pick up for the $20 range, yet people still shell out the 60-90 dollars for D&D, the 30 +20 x splatbooks for Whitewolf, etc, etc, etc.

Lower priced games may get people to pick up things on a lark, but it won't get them to stop buying the other games.  No, folks will stop buying the other games either because they're not happy with the product, or the perception of the product.  And people have talked a lot of trash about a lot of games, from D&D to Vampire to Rifts, and they still sell.

People may grumble about price, but ultimately, they still buy stuff.  It's when they decide the product isn't for them, for whatever reason, that sales stop happening.

Chris

[Dav]

Ralph, you should know better (and you do, you're being obtuse):

WalMart is not a manufacturer.  They are a seller, end of story.  A game designer is a manufacturer, first and foremost.  Manufacturers ALWAYS look at what the other guy is doing, and often do "price set" (within the confines of the law... somewhat).  WalMart has nothing but price and selection as a differentiating position (sure, tell me about employee aid and that crap, we know that it only matters to grannies and fools).  If WalMart has Coke for 4.99, and Target has it for 3.99, of course everyone goes to Target... because there is NO DIFFERENCE in product.

However, after gauging the inputs of raw materials, manufacturers always gauge the rest of the market when setting end price.  Always.  Or they are stupid.  You are in business, why would you sell your widget at $3 when everyone else sells their widgets for $7?  You wouldn't.  You would find the interval of indifference and set your price right there... because people won't buy more copies of your widget, they only need one.  They'll buy something at $6 over $7, but at $3, they'll think your widget is shoddy.  You know it and I know it, and anyone can complain, but they are wrong (this isn't opinion, it is fact, pure and simple).

WalMart can be compared to FLGS, but not to designers and publishers.  We manufacture the product, they sell the product to an end user.  Manufacturers selling into the three-tier system (curse it for a poxy whore), find that their buying public doesn't fucking care what you are, what you have, or why you have it.  If it sells, they buy it, at a discount, and make the amrkup cost.  If the percentage of your game is so much lower than another game, such that your game requires 50 copies to make the same profit 1 of this other company's makes, they expect your demand to come near, or match that 50x rate (Hurdle Rate, people, Hurdle Rate).

Now then, the other side of the coin is that while you SHOULD fix price competitive but not debilitating to other products (and you should, because too cheap and you can't meet a 3-tier hurdle, too expensive and... well.. you better have something right beautiful), if you don't, you increase the need for a higher demand when moving through the 3-tier (or you can end-run it to FLGS, but honestly, I'd rather kill myself than deal with the masses of mouth-breathing FLGS-owners on a regular basis... not that ALL FLGS are mouth-breathers, but there is a preponderance of them).  Here's the other thing: there is no fucking way that you hurt, injure, wound, or otherwise infringe on some other company's price point when you set waaay low, or competitive, or whatever.  You just don't.  Anyone who says otherwise is lying to you, or just plain does not understand.  Period.  This is canon.  Drill this into the heads of everyone you meet: RPG'S ARE NEITHER COMPLIMENTARY NOR SUBSTITUTIVE PRODUCTS!

They are unique.  At any given moment, a kid will spend $X on gaming.  He will tend to stick with what he knows.  But shiny catches the eye... he buys something new.  THIS DOES NOT MEAN HE WILL NOT BUY OTHER THINGS IN THE FUTURE!  The only impact to other companies is in time value of money.  The sales cycle fluctuates (SLIGHTLY).  Companies that cannot weather this, especially if they are of the type that employs regular employees, who draw salary, SHOULD NOT EXIST!  Friedman says you suck, I say you suck, and a capitalistic economy says you suck.  In the end, you suck.  A company should have how many months of solvency without new business or a contracting of existing business (anyone? anyone?)?  

If you run your company as a business, expect to be treated like a business.  If you run it as a hobby that makes you some cash, expect it to be treated accordingly.  No, there is no RPG industry (there isn't, just isn't... Publishing = Industry, RPG Publishing = Market of an Industry, and a pretty goddamned micro-niche market at that... just look at a fucking dictionary).

What I'm in the end saying here is this: Ralph, Walmart is not an RPG Designer and you know it, they operate on different business principles.  Apples and oranges.  To everyone else: Ralph has something of a point.  Business ain't friendship, and fuckall if you can't make it on your own.  That said, RPG design AIN'T BUSINESS!... it should be a community, it should price set collectively, and it should have the ability to call up someone in another company and say: "have you thought about X, that would be AWESOME!"  I don't care what you say, not even Wizards has anything approaching an operating budget or market capture rate that does anything more than make say: aaaand?  This is a small potatoes market, always has been, always will be.  You can't change it, I can't change it, nobody can.  There will never be a time when every kid wants the shiny new RPG under the Xian Tree... ever.

Eye-on-the-ball, here.

Dav, and his rambling is now over... stop crying and spinning your head.