A .PDF query

[pigames]

If anyone is interested, here is my thinking on the subject:

I believe that pdf files should be sold for less than $10 with 5 to 9 being optimal. This is just me but I don't want to take the chance of throwing away anymore than $10 on something I can't inspect. This IS why I would spend up to $30 on hardcovers. If you go to a bookstore or hobby shop you may not get a discount but atleast you get a glimpse of the artwork, layout, and general quality.

Our (Politically Incorrect Games / //www.pigames.net) first official release is The Colonies RPG which will sell for $8.95. I would like to charge $7.95 to compete with Deep 7's Mean Streets (which is nice!!!!!), but I don't want to undercut our other game, Dystopia, when it ships as a paperback.

As far as worth goes, anyone who puts a lot of work into a project-whether it be writing, drawing, or layout deserves to be compensated by the purchaser. I would love to get $100 but who would pay it. I've put considerable time and effort into these projects just like Nathan and everyone else in this forum. Let's be realistic, the amount we can charge is determined by the market. Customers/fans will pay only what they are willing to risk. More than $10 maybe too much. Even 9 to 10 may be pushing it.

Let's also remember, people have to print on their own paper using their own ink, print quality is only as good as their printer, and download the file (large files on 56k is not fun). The benefits are instant access to the file (in most cases), hyperlinks to sections (hopefully), and full color without paying high prices. Balance.

Just my opinion,

Brett Bernstein
Politically Incorrect Games
www.pigames.net
"Games with 'tude."

[contracycle]

About 5p.

When I pay for a physical product like a book, I am part paying for and hence lubricating the mechanisms of production, frex:
- the cutting down of trees and transportation of timber
- the processing of timber to woodpulp and paper
- the production and transportation of ink
- the actual print process and shipping of the product
- the rent and labour of the establishment that retails the product
- wages in all of the above
- capital asset depreciation of all of the above
- transportation costs for all of the above
- last and to some extent least, the labour of the artist

All of that is, to me, worth the £15-odd I stump at the counter.  At least, I can understand WHY I am being asked for £15.  I see no reason to pay an even remotely equivalent price for a purely electronic product.  The capital investment in a physical paper product is orders of magnitude higher than that for a PDF, and hence the unit cost for an electronic product should be orders of magnitude lower, IMO.

I would consider $1 to be the absolute top end I would be willing to pay for purely electronic publishing.

[Valamir]

I would consider $1 to be the absolute top end I would be willing to pay for purely electronic publishing.

And there boys and girls is a lesson in how to formulate a demand curve.  How many buyers would there be for the Sorcerer PDF if it had sold for $1...lets call it N on the X-axis.  Well at 2$ we now have N-1 on the X-axis.  Somewhere up above $5 we hit N-N.

Of course how CC arrived at his price of $1 is unique in itself.  Few are the consumers who, when they buy a book, conciously consider the price to be reimbursement to the timber and paper mill industries.  [note, however, CC failed to account for the fact that many of those same expenses and wages would accrue to the PDF side of the equation in the form of the paper and ink used to print out a copy at home].

No, most consumers operate under the principle of Utility, which is simply "How valuable is that item to me".

Under the principle of Utility CC (assuming he'd be willing to buy the Sorcerer hardcover for $20) is saying that the value of Sorcerer in terms of the enjoyment he'd derive from playing it, thinking about it, using its concepts in his other games, etc is only $1.  $19 of his enjoyment of Sorcerer comes from it being in the format of an actual book replete with paper and ink and a nice stiff cover and good binding, and a dust jacket.

By this logic, we should be able to sell CC a book of meaningless drivel typed by a monkey for $19, since it is apparently the paper and binding that he derives enjoyment from  (of course, judgeing from the Times Best Seller list...this could well be true for most readers).

I postulate that pricing PDF's by the very common principle of activity should instead work like this.

1) If this product were in printed form with a top quality binding and cover, and full color cover art, and extra special layout, how much would I be willing to pay for it...Lets call that $N (which is somewhere between $20 and $50)

2) How much enjoyment do I derive from the actual tactile pleasure of holding a well put together book in my hands...Lets call that X.

3) How much of a pain in the butt is it to print out the book myself, and how much does the paper and ink cost me to do it...Lets call that Y.

4) How much lower quality is the art and layout in this PDF than it would be if the designer had to shell out the bucks for a printed version (i.e. he'd need better quality layout than that to make sure it sold as a printed version)...Lets call that Z.
[note for games like Cartoon Action Hour, Z is pretty much $0 or darn close to it]

5) How much added usefullness does the PDF give in terms of being able to print multiple copies for convenient at the table reference, and being able to electronically assemble reference sheets and such (i.e. Fair Use manipulation of the file to the extent that its cheaper and more convenient than running to Kinkos)...Lets call that W.


The proper price that a consumer should be willing to pay for a PDF then is $N -X -Y -Z +W.  

In other words the price of the PDF should be exactly equal to the price of the printed version less all of the things you have to give up now that its not in a printed version, plus whatever perceived advantages there are to it being not in a printed version.


So if someone says "I'd pay $35 for a hardcover, but no more than $10 for a PDF"...what they are really saying (assuming the PDF uses comparable art and layout) is that they value the tactile sensation of a book and the difficulty of clicking <print> more highly than the actual artistic content of the work itself.

Now there is no "right or wrong" answer to demand curves.  A demand curve simply indicates how many people would (or by extension, wouldn't) be willing to pay a given amount for a given product, no matter how they arrived at that price.

But I have to ask the question.  For those people who feel this way...could you explain exactly why you are placing a higher value on what are essentially formatting issues than you are on the actual content?

[pigames]

But I have to ask the question. For those people who feel this way...could you explain exactly why you are placing a higher value on what are essentially formatting issues than you are on the actual content?

Quality of publishing can often be confused with quality of content. A full color, cool looking book will generally sell better than a plain looking document. The "if it looks cool it must be good" attitude is an important factor to those wishing to sell their products.

Brett

[Le Joueur]

But I have to ask the question.  For those people who feel this way...could you explain exactly why you are placing a higher value on what are essentially formatting issues than you are on the actual content?

Hey...it's because we make it look easy.  (The writing/layout/design part, that is.)

Fang Langford

[contracycle]

Of course how CC arrived at his price of $1 is unique in itself.  

Yes, I thought it was being rather generous, but I preferred to err on the side of caution.

[note, however, CC failed to account for the fact that many of those same expenses and wages would accrue to the PDF side of the equation in the form of the paper and ink used to print out a copy at home].

False, or at least, those costs were reimbursed when I purchased my print paper, ink and printer.

No, most consumers operate under the principle of Utility, which is simply "How valuable is that item to me".

That is a matter of considerable ideological debate.

By this logic, we should be able to sell CC a book of meaningless drivel typed by a monkey for $19, since it is apparently the paper and binding that he derives enjoyment from  (of course, judgeing from the Times Best Seller list...this could well be true for most readers).

False.  By this logic, a physical book typed by a monkey cost exactly the same to produce as sorcerer did, or nearly so - the only thing saved is the artists commission, unless you have a very forward looking relationship with the monkey.  My enjoyment is totally irrelevant, except inasmuch as I have chosen to purchase the product.  It is unlikely that I, or indeed anyone else, would purchase such a product.  Nonethless, the cost incurred incurred in its production remain costs, even if it never sells a single unit.  That is the risk that the investors in the project bore.

Thus, the expense that I would accrue for the purchase of both works is roughly the same; but one of them is likely much more able to compete for my money.  That is all she wrote.

But I have to ask the question.  For those people who feel this way...could you explain exactly why you are placing a higher value on what are essentially formatting issues than you are on the actual content?

Because I am aware of what I am paying for, and I won't pay the same rate for less investment.  I respect the fact that an object was produced, shipped, marketted.  I recognise the need to recompense the people who invested in this process.  And I simply am not prepared to recompense a PDF printer-wannabe at a substantially, egregiously, higher rate of capital ROI just because they think I should.

[Clinton R. Nixon]

And now we've seen the "information is free" side of the debate. I can't say I agree at all, which is odd, since I've been a big proponent of open source and other free-information groups.

Information has a right to be free if the artist wants it to be, but it's not intrinsicly so. Where Contracycle's argument fell apart for me was when he started talking about artists' commissions. But - if the artist did his work on a computer, why would I pay for it? (according to his argument) The artist hasn't used any paper or canvas or paint or ink. The artist has spent only time (well, that and the investment for the computer, drawing pad, software, and more.)

Basically, Contracycle's argument boils down to a complete lack of respect for the work put into a product's ideas. I suppose that if you don't respect intellectual labor, it doesn't make sense to pay for it.

I dunno. I'm not even going to bother arguing this further, because, to be honest, I'm incensed, and it's probably not a good idea for the admin to start a flame war.

[rafael]

Because I am aware of what I am paying for, and I won't pay the same rate for less investment.  I respect the fact that an object was produced, shipped, marketted.  I recognise the need to recompense the people who invested in this process.  And I simply am not prepared to recompense a PDF printer-wannabe at a substantially, egregiously, higher rate of capital ROI just because they think I should.

Yeah, I kind of see what you mean, but I can't figure out the whole investment thing.  I mean, Public Enemy released an entire album in mp3 format once.  So no liner art, no jewel cases, no cd, nothing but electronic data that you could download for a few bucks.  I think that was pretty cool, and it never even occurred to me to ask how much they'd spent.  It was good music, you know?  That was it.

A cheap indie movie that cost a few grand can be a lot funnier than a million-dollar Freddie Prinze comedy, but they both charge the same.  I guess what I'm saying is, it's odd to consider how much someone spent making something when it would appear that the obvious question is, is this really worth X bucks?  Is it funny?  Is it engaging?  Is it art?  I mean, sure, presentation's got a little bit to do with it, but not that much.  Calculating the manufacturer's investment before you decide whether or not you should pay a certain amount for something just seems really... curious.

[contracycle]

I happily grant that it is relatively unusual, and it occurs in large part because I had to study business accounting.  But, lots and lots of people study this sort of thing, its hardly unique knowledge.  OTOH, I grant that most people don't think in those terms, they only think in personal cost/benefit terms.  However, there is a knock-on effect here: if it becomes established that PDF's retail for about the same rate as printed products, and PDF's cost substantially less investment to produce... then print paper RPG's become even less economical as a business investment.  You can get the volume of return for a substantially lower volume of investment, so PDF printing applies massive profit pressure to existing paper publishers.  Perhaps SEP field material, for most, but this too has corrollaries - we should expect RPG production to shift more and more to PDF-only as profit competition starts to bite, which means that in the end we will also presumably lose the friendly local gaming store: either because it has no physical products to stock, or becuase the products it does carry need to be radically discounted to compete with the slightly cheaper PDF competition.  And in that price cutting environment, all the advantages are with the PDF's, and the price of PDF's will eventually stabilise at (IMO) a handful or dollars at best after all.

[rafael]

Well, here's the thing.  You say that if PDFs cost the same as printed products, then print RPGS become less economical.  But like someone else already said, there's not much of a market for PDFs.  I mean, it's there, but we're not talking about mp3s here -- it's not like everyone's going to start using PDFs instead of shelling out twenty or thirty bucks for printed games.  Therefore, I really don't see PDFs exerting pressure to existing paper publishers.  There's really no competition.  So I really can't see the FLGS going away -- I mean, that's just really improbable.

[Valamir]

Quality of publishing can often be confused with quality of content. A full color, cool looking book will generally sell better than a plain looking document. The "if it looks cool it must be good" attitude is an important factor to those wishing to sell their products.

I certainly can agree with this.  We see it all the time in computer games, where quality game play takes a back seat to whiz-bang graphics.

It certainly is a valid assumption to make when deciding whether to publish in PDF first as Ron and Cynthia did, or go straight to printed material as Jake and Pete did.  If one believes the public will assume higher quality content based on appearances, than one may conclude they can sell more books by offering such appearances.

BUT, that doesn't completely address the question, because a number of people price PDFs the same way even though they know first hand what the quality of the content is.  So it can't exclusively be a question of being fooled into thinking printed paper = quality.

Jake, for instance (not to pick on you specifically Jake, your post just provides a convenient example) knew in advance what the quality of content of Inspectres was and now agrees that its a great product that he's glad he owns.  But despite feeling the content was valuable, he still expresses some trepidation about the price.  


To ContraCycle:  I am well aware that our differences on economic theory are irreconcilable and I have no desire to enter such a debate in this forum.  We shall have to enjoy our discussions of game theory and mutual appreciation for ancient history, and avoid discussing a topic which, were we to come face to face, would likely come to blows over ;-)

So that you know the perspective I'm approaching the question from:
If I pay $10 for a PDF and I get $10 worth of personal enjoyment and entertainment from it then I consider that to have been a fair price to have paid.    If I only got $5 of enjoyment out of it I'd feel ripped off, and if I got $15 of enjoyment out of it I'd consider it a good deal.  Whether the other party made $1 profit or $9 profit or lost $3 on the deal is completely and utterly immaterial to me.

[contracycle]

And now we've seen the "information is free" side of the debate. I can't say I agree at all, which is odd, since I've been a big proponent of open source and other free-information groups.

Information has a right to be free if the artist wants it to be, but it's not intrinsicly so. Where Contracycle's argument fell apart for me was when he started talking about artists' commissions.

But it is NOT an "information wants to be free" argument at all.  I have accepted that money CAN legitimately be charged for a PDF (even though I have personal qualms about it that go substanially further than this discussion).  I am only in this case giving an indication of what RATE I would find acceptable; and I cannot accept that PDF publication has any claim to the kind of retail values that a physical product can demand.

Yes, you can charge money for your ideas.  No, you CAN'T charge me the same rate for just-an-idea as you can for the-same-idea-printed-and-shipped.

But - if the artist did his work on a computer, why would I pay for it?

Because the computer is an TOOL used in the process of production.  therefore, its costs must be depreciated against the volume of sales and the rate of technical turnover which might make it redundant (frex the 5 year period I selected for the CD burner; pretty aggressive depreciation but valid I think for IT).

OTOH, that would require that the computer be registered as a business asset, and be the property of the company not a person.  It will be taxed accordingly.

Basically, Contracycle's argument boils down to a complete lack of respect for the work put into a product's ideas. I suppose that if you don't respect intellectual labor, it doesn't make sense to pay for it.

Quite the opposite in fact - I am a huge proponent of labour = value.  But this is capitalism, which does NOT recognise labour as a source of value.  If you want to talk should-be's, we can: but as the situation stands today, investment counts, not effort.  Its not called Return On INVESTMENT for nothing.

[contracycle]

Well, here's the thing.  You say that if PDFs cost the same as printed products, then print RPGS become less economical.  But like someone else already said, there's not much of a market for PDFs.  

Yet.  I'm doing my little bit to keep it that way.

[contracycle]

deleted accidental post

[Walt Freitag]

But this is capitalism, which does NOT recognise labour as a source of value.

Well, yes and no, depending on what you mean by "source." The amount of labor isn't the determining factor in the value placed on something (if I spend days carefully arranging toothpicks in intricate patterns, I can't force anybody to pay me for my efforts), but neither is the amount of capital invested (I can't force anyone to pay par value for my Enron shares either). Labor is often a major part of production costs. In other words, a lot of capital is used to pay for labor in order to produce something. (This includes the opportunity cost of your own labor if you produce something yourself). That's reflected in the price of the goods.

Specialty products have different economics than mass market products. (See: economies of scale.) The consultant who writes a 50-page business analysis report with a few graphs and diagrams doesn't charge $25.00 for it, or even 25 cents a word. Gareth's principle is a two-edged sword. It might help keep the FLGS in business, but it also discourages non mass market products by holding them to mass-market per unit margins. That's a bit like expecting a tailor to custom make that special kind of suit you prefer, then charge no more than Wal-Mart's price for them.

- Walt