Bad news from RPGNow

[TheLe]

what are the options if you don't want to pay that fee? What can you, small publisher person, specifically do for yourself?

Here's a good option for you: Phil Reed's CREATIONCRASH.COM store.

With Unorthodox Bards, I have started to sell my books there as well as rpgnow.com

~Le

[andy]

I received a copy of the RPGNow changes and responded directly to James (which I think is the best way to handle any concerns--while bitching on the Forge has a certain therapeutic value, it is of questionable efficacy at best).

My response--

Two comments-

First, with respect to the pricing change, your business model has to work for you. I (and, I'm sure, all of your other Gold vendors) appreciate the grandfathering of the pricing.

Second, I think that your attempts at quality control, while well-intentioned, are a mistake. People surf and buy from RPGNow for the variety and for the offbeat--if they want homogenized D20 product, they buy it from their game stores or from Borders. One man's trash is another man's treasure, and you've got a lot of both. This is a good thing. I noticed (and purchased) a lot of the old, classic DnD products when they hit RPGNow--under the quality control standards contained in your PDF, they'd never clear the market.

Heck, under your standards, the original DnD never would have cleared the market.

Well, I'll end my pseudo-rant with a final observation. Don't depend on your reviews and/or customer complaints to tell you what is quality and what is not. Although I am a longtime customer, I am a first time vendor. My first product received an unfair (IMHO) review hours after release, which certainly impacted my sales (my RPGNow sales are 10% of my total and my Lulu/hardcopy retail sales are 90% of my total, exactly the opposite of what I expected).

Why not charge a $10.00 set up fee for each product and leave the quality control to the buyers? Less work for you, no specter of censorship, and no risk of missing the next DnD.

I'll shut up now.

Besides, if a couple of reviewers or a single dissatisfied customer gets to set the standard for "drek" and get a product booted, the diversity of our hobby will take a hit.

Andy

[greyorm]

Here's a good option for you: Phil Reed's CREATIONCRASH.COM store.

Excellent start. I didn't even know Phil had a site like that. Anyone have any other similar input?

[timfire]

Besides, if a couple of reviewers or a single dissatisfied customer gets to set the standard for "drek" and get a product booted, the diversity of our hobby will take a hit.

This was the one part of the changes I didn't agree with. I don't think it's fair that a product gets rejected just because a customer complaims about it. Hopefully the people in charge have guidelines for what's considered a serious complaint and what's just a regretful customer.

[Lxndr]

Here's a good option for you: Phil Reed's CREATIONCRASH.COM store.

Excellent start. I didn't even know Phil had a site like that. Anyone have any other similar input?

There's always lulu.com, which has been mentioned in other threads.  I'm selling from both rpgnow.com and lulu.com currently, as is Clinton (Donjon) and a few other names I'm not recalling at 3:00 in the morning.  Going to check on creationcrash.com as a potential third source for Fastlane sales.

[ChefKyle]

If these rules hadc been in effect when i got started I would never have been able to beginw tih RPGNow. As it is, how many of us are going to have our products booted from the system?

With the greatest of respect, Michael, a person whose company openly solicits donations - not payment, but donations - to help put its products come out is not one which is representative of the majority of vendors on RpgNow.

Examining your website, http://www.mphpress.com/, shows that requests for donations are present on six out of the eight product pages.

This could be the end of indie publishing as we know it.

No, it just means you need to get $40 worth of donations before you can sign up:)

I don't mean to shower scorn on your poverty. Certainly I'm no rich man myself, much to the disappointment of several artists I know. However, you must recognise that your situation is not universal. Most small-press companies rely on sales revenue, not donations, to continue their work.

[GMSkarka]

Rpgnow.com has already stated that the setup fee will NOt apply to existing vendors, but those big publishers keep insisting that it should.

What a bunch of crap.

You might want to read those threads again...nobody is "insisting" anything.

The only comment that has been made (and it is one that I agree wholeheartedly with) is that if a $40 fee is a problem for someone, then they should seriously reconsider being in business, since they're obviously operating at the "hobby" level--hence charging that fee to everyone would weed out amateurs who are not serious.

[GMSkarka]

This was the one part of the changes I didn't agree with. I don't think it's fair that a product gets rejected just because a customer complaims about it. Hopefully the people in charge have guidelines for what's considered a serious complaint and what's just a regretful customer.

We do.

We're not going to pull products on somebody else's word.   A bad review will get us to take more than just the cursory look we initially give the product.  That's all.

[GMSkarka]

If you'll forgive me, Andy, I'd like to respond to a couple of the things you send to James:

Heck, under your standards, the original DnD never would have cleared the market.

...and it shouldn't.   The originial DnD is a THIRTY YEAR OLD product.  It doesn't even approach todays standards of production.   Would you expect a modern computer store to devote shelf space to first-generation PCs?  No...the standards of production have moved on for three decades.

Hell, DnD barely approached the standards of production back then.  :)

no specter of censorship

Just a pet peeve of mine--  unless you're talking about a governmental body preventing something from being published or distributed, you're not talking about censorship.   It's one of those words that gets thrown around alot on the internet, and incorrectly at that.

[andy]

andy wrote:
no specter of censorship


Just a pet peeve of mine-- unless you're talking about a governmental body preventing something from being published or distributed, you're not talking about censorship. It's one of those words that gets thrown around alot on the internet, and incorrectly at that.

I understand the pet peeve, and I agree that private entities normally cannot engage in "censorship" as such-- however, the reason that I used the phrase "specter of censorship" is that censorship was one of the issues raised on the RPGNow discussion boards before this change was implemented.

Finally, while average production values have greatly improved since the original DnD was released, Gygax, Arneson and their cohorts were working on a shoestring then-- a lot of indie publishers work on a shoestring now -- and production values do not define the quality of a game/supplement/adventure, etc.

Lest we judge a book by its cover.

Caveat emptor. I think that if RPGNow removes a lot of its fringe product and a lot of older product, it will be giving its current and future competitors a leg up in this developing market. I've already approached Drivethrurpg.com (which is also a great site).

Andy

[GMSkarka]

Lest we judge a book by its cover.

We will, actually.  By it's cover, and the presentation of its content.

Why?

Because that's EXACTLY what customers do.

In one of our most recent market surveys, a disturbingly large percentage of respondents said that "amateurish product" was one of the problems they saw on RPGNow.   Our competitors began branding themselves as the "first PROFESSIONAL ebook site", etc.    

Bluntly, the appearance of sub-standard product IS a problem, and it is one that this new policy will directly address.

[andy]

If the customers really judge product by its cover and purchase accordingly, why pre-screen for them?

At RPGNow (or any other site), you have to consciously choose to look at a product before being subjected to its thumbnail and/or description. Complaining about such a product's "amateurish" production is akin to complaining about a TV program that you surfed past on the dial (or have never even seen).

Variety and innovation, not conformity and appearance, are the spice of the indie scene. The idea that a game may not rock if its author couldn't afford a good artist and/or layout is simply wrong. As my example, I offer Wu Shu, a totally kick-ass game with great reviews and minimal art/layout. It's not pretty, but damn it's good.

I'll shut up now.

Andy

[Clinton R. Nixon]

Why do I currently shop at RPGnow? Because I can go there and find games I've never heard of or seen before, unique games that sometimes are decidedly crap-fests, but sometimes incredible. That's why my games are currently there as well - I want to be associated with that sort of arena.

When Phil Reed gets off his tuckus and e-mails me back, you can be assured that this sort of action - removal based off subjective reviews of a product's worth - will move me off RPGnow in a flash. I'd not suggest anyone else do such a thing, but I would note that the reason I love independent publishing is that people think with their morals as much as their wallet.

If you're undecided as to whether RPGnow is doing this to help you or harm you, I suggest you do a search on the Forge to see how James, and the new Minion, Gareth, have treated independent publishers here in the past.

Side points:
* Andy's post is what I'd say if I were more tactful. Awesome post, Andy.
* Michael - calm down, man. It's like being in a room with a hummingbird.

[GMSkarka]

If the customers really judge product by its cover and purchase accordingly, why pre-screen for them?

Because products that add to the impression that the site caters to amateurs impact every single one of our vendors by association.  

Because if someone's first purchase is something that's been slapped together by some amateur wanna-be, they're not likely to return as a customer.

There are many other reasons, most of which fall under basic marketing, but those two are the biggies.

[Clinton R. Nixon]

Because if someone's first purchase is something that's been slapped together by some amateur wanna-be, they're not likely to return as a customer.

I'm going to go ahead and get all moderator-like here. "Amateur wanna-be" is name-calling and flaming. (Etiquette at the Forge. III. D. "any expression of hostility". Considering that we're dedicated to helping self-publishers, well, publish, that's pretty hostile.)

Let's calm this down, Gareth, and hope that some sort of real discussion can take place.

Clinton R. Nixon
Webmaster, The Forge