Not signed in (Sign In)

Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome Guest!
Want to take part in these discussions? If you have an account, sign in now.
If you don't have an account, apply for one now.

Games and Gaming: Selling ideas vs. selling products

Bottom of Page

1 to 80 of 85

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. >
  1.  # 1
    So here's this thing that's been bouncing around in my head for at least a year or two now.

    I've seen various game designers make pricing decisions for their games based on the quality of the gaming experience offered by their game, rather than the physical item of the game book. In other words, charging for the ideas, rather than the book as a product. I find this strange, and even a little offensive.

    Like, if you have a joke, should I pay you a quarter to hear it? Maybe it's just my hardcore belief that information is free, and not a commodity, no matter how hard folks try to turn it into one.

    When I buy an RPG, in my head, I'm paying for the book itself. I'm sure as hell not paying for the ideas in the game. If someone wanted to charge me so that they could verbally relay the rules of their game, I'd probably tell them to do something rude and almost certainly physically impossible. Same would go if they wanted me to drop $40 for a photocopied page of rules, or a PDF.

    I've only written one game, so far. It's simple enough that you can play it once, then never need to reference the rules again. But I also think it provides an awesome gaming experience. Personally, I've never had anything worse than a "good" game using it, and I also used it to play my best gaming session ever. But because it's only available as a one-page PDF, I don't charge for it. Even if I had a laminated, well-laid-out print version to sell, I'd probably only charge a few bucks for it.

    This is all part of why I don't see any problem with PDF piracy. Basically, I don't think it's right to charge for PDFs in the first place. I know people do, but that doesn't mean I think it's right to do so. As an extension of this, I also think indie games are overpriced, with very few exceptions. In fact, the only one that comes to mind immediately is the first edition of Burning Wheel. Now, I understand that certain factors in small-press publication conflict with this. And that's fine; pragmatism will trump idealism every time.

    What this means for me is that if I sell a game in a physical book, I'll probably be selling it at a price equal to its production cost, plus a small amount to improve future products, then rounded up to the next convenient five-dollar increment. And electronic versions would be free.

    What this means for others is up to them.

    Anyway, that's where I'm coming from on this. What I'd like to hear are opinions, both from people who agree and those who don't. Really, this is just something I want to discuss, and maybe learn something from.
  2.  # 2
    Here's a disagreeing opinion.

    I pay for novels based on the ideas and specific execution, including, say, plot twists, character moments, and so on. But I don't pay people for telling me their novel ideas. So I think paying for an RPG with good, well-executed ideas is just fine.

    Secondly, this is a market-based deal. People charge as much as is profitable without turning off too many customers. We might be hippie players, but that doesn't mean we're hippies as self-publishers. There's nothing wrong with charging for RPG ideas in PDF form and being able to pay off part of the family's credit cards with the proceeds.

    That said, I'm sure I could have charged more for my game to maximize profits, but for me personally, getting it into more hands was worth more. But that's a personal decision.
  3.  # 3
    Hey Andrew, unless I misunderstand you, you seem to be arguing that my work has no value, which is fine, but I definitely don't agree.

    Also, I'm reading this as you saying that the physical quality of the object is more important than the quality of the content when determining value, which doesn't make sense to me. Again, we can differ, but I wonder if I'm misreading you.

    Finally I think there's a big difference between supporting open licensing and promoting theft. With a physical object, I assign value to it and the consumer can buy it or not. if they don't buy it and take it anyway, that's theft, regardless of whether the value I assigned makes sense to them. What changes when that object is in electronic form, in your mind?

    In case the Interweb gets in the way of my intention, I'm asking in perfect amity and respect. I'm more curious than anything, because my position is so different.
  4.  # 4
    Posted By: Andrew MorrisI've seen various game designers make pricing decisions for their games based on the quality of the gaming experience offered by their game, rather than the physical item of the game book. In other words, charging for the ideas, rather than the book as a product. I find this strange, and even a little offensive.


    As a career procurement professional, I can tell you that the concept of value-based pricing is extremely common in our economy (pervasive, really).

    A signficant amount of negotiations I conduct (if not all) have the value a customer will receive as one of the primary cost drivers.

    In any event, charging for only the physical nature of the book is, to me a non-starter. There's an entire set of factors which necessarily must be considered when pricing a product, including the cost of labor, capital, etc., etc. If anything, the s-g / small games publisher community receives not small criticism that they are, in fact, under charging by discounting their time as producers, writers, etc.

    Extended to other media, paintings aren't priced based on the cost of the canvas and paint. Far from it.

    You're certainly entitled your opinion, but I professionally, simply disagree.
    • CommentAuthorJDCorley
    • CommentTimeMar 18th 2007
     # 5
    I don't get either the original position or opposing the original position. Both seem to miss the point.

    Selling and buying is based on a myriad of factors.

    The bottom line is that if you're not offering someone what they want, in the form they want, in the location they want, at the price they want, they won't buy it from you.

    The same is true of performances of Hamlet and screwdrivers, of New York real estate and sticks you found outside that have a neat little bend in them.

    Whether you classify something as an 'idea' or as a 'work' is merely figuring out whether to shelve salsa next to tortillas or green peppers in the grocery store.
  6.  # 6
    Okay, keep in mind that I'm not saying I've seen the truth and you should all agree with me. I think I put enough modifiers in here to indicate that this is very much just my current point of view, not fully thought out or articulated.

    Christian: On buying a book, would you also feel comfortable with paying to read a book, as opposed to owning one? Should libraries charge you to borrow a book?

    On the business end of things, I understand that people do this. I'm not talking about whether it happens or is workable, but whether it is right to do so.

    Jason: In a sense, yes, I'm saying that your ideas have no direct monetary value. That's not to say that they're not good, or fun, or important. But I'm not going to pay you for them directly.

    For example, I can play the Roach a few times, copy down the important bits, make my own cards, and play it without buying it. I can use your ideas without your product. You can't force me to pay you for the ideas, is what I'm saying. So if it's not the ideas I'm buying, then it must be the product, right?

    The matter of electronic documents might need its own thread, but basically the difference is that you lose nothing, if someone pirates a copy of your game. If you steal my car, then I don't have a car. If you take a picture of my car, or somehow magically make a copy of it, I still have my car. No harm was done to me in the latter case.

    Brian: Again, I'm not addressing whether it is doable or not. I know it is. And I'm not disputing that the price should cover more than the printing costs. Just that "ideas" shouldn't have a cost added on to all the other costs of production.

    As to the artwork, the cost of an original piece takes into consideration the fact that it was actually created by the artist. Prints cost less. Me going into a gallery and taking a photo of it (or looking at it in the gallery) costs nothing.
    • CommentAuthortj333
    • CommentTimeMar 18th 2007 edited
     # 7
    My point of view is that the ideas are the most valuable part of the book. Otherwise I wouldn't have paid for all of these PDFs (RPG and non-RPG) that I have.
    I'm happy to pay 4 or 10 times the physical cost/bandwidth (PDFs do cost bandwidth, servers, and maintenance) of a book.

    And if your game is good enough that you think its worth a couple extra buck then I'm willing to pay to find out.
    I've also paid libraries on a number of occasions to read their books (In the form of late fees and donations to the library.)
  8.  # 8
    Andrew,

    I don't understand--I read most books just once, so I paid for that one read. I don't pay for a novel based on how pretty it is. I don't pay more for it because it has more pages or a prettier interior layout. I pay for the quality of the content. If the only way to get to read books was through renting them, I'd do that, and all I'd miss out on was not having shelves full of books I'll never read again.

    And no one can force you to buy a book if you have other access to it, like a library or a friend who loans it to you. Still, there's a lot of work that went into the writing of the book. I want to pay the author, be it an RPG book or a novel, so that they are rewarded for that effort and will write more in the future. If no one had paid a dime for George Martin's Game of Thrones, he would never have been in a position to write the sequels. Fuck that. Pay him and enable him to write more. And pay indie RPG designers so they can write more cool games.
  9.  # 9
    Posted By: Andrew MorrisFor example, I can play the Roach a few times, copy down the important bits, make my own cards, and play it without buying it. I can use your ideas without your product. You can't force me to pay you for the ideas, is what I'm saying. So if it's not the ideas I'm buying, then it must be the product, right?

    The matter of electronic documents might need its own thread, but basically the difference is that you lose nothing, if someone pirates a copy of your game. If you steal my car, then I don't have a car. If you take a picture of my car, or somehow magically make a copy of it, I still have my car. No harm was done to me in the latter case.


    OK, that explains your position better. I do disagree across the board. I only recently bought TSOY after playing the hell out of it for a year (sorry, Clinton). My point is that I eventually did buy a copy - even though by your logic I didn't need to. Why? Beyond the improvement having a physical copy brings to the table, because it is a good game and I want to support it, and its creator. Why did I buy a copy of Primitive at Gen Con (which, by your product-only based assessment, was crazy expensive)? I liked what Kevin was attempting and wanted to tell him in a tangible way that I thought it is worthwhile. Again, I could have gone home and played Primitive without buying a copy - the game is very straightforward. And maybe Kevin would pick a new hobby, who knows?

    I think you're way off with the "I don't lose anything" angle for electronic content. I lose a potential sale (the guys who stole it were interested enough to take it; maybe a few of them would have paid for it - we can ask Jake Richmond about this). And worse, my "free" product is in the hands of someone who considers it worthless.
    • CommentAuthorTim Gray
    • CommentTimeMar 18th 2007
     # 10
    So, Andrew, what you'd really like is a shelf full of lots of pretty covers full of blank pages, which would be slightly cheaper without the necessity of paying those pesky writers?

    "I choose not to make money from my game, therefore everyone who does is a bad person"?
    • CommentAuthorMoreno R.
    • CommentTimeMar 18th 2007
     # 11
    I agree that information should be free, but it seems really strange to me that you call a book or and rpg "information". It is not, if not in the most mechanical ("a lot of bits") sense. It's like saying that the Venus of Milo shound be sold at the price of the material, because the work of Milo is "information" and should be free.

    I think that the first person who said "information should be free" had in mind something other than copying a DVD of an Hollywood movie. The informations that should be free are informations that we have the right to know but someone is working to avoid it.

    Using these words for something that didn't exist until someone worked to create them as a work of art (or craft) is another thing.

    I am saying that the "ideas" in a game rules pdf should cost a lot money? Hell, no. Ideas are worthless. Everybody has a lot of them. Almost all of them are rubbish, and finding the ones thast works, and how to make them works, it's a lot of... work.

    I don't want to do all this work, so I pay a game designer to make all this work (desihgn, playtesting, and all that) for me. And give me a pdf with something more than a simple "idea".

    Expecting him to work for me for nothing, doesn't seem "free information" for me. It seem slave labor.

    (it's not the same if the designer want to give his game for free. This is like voluntary social work. You thank people who do it for free, and you thank them because they didn't have to)
  12.  # 12
    TJ: Good point about bandwidth. I'll have to think about that.

    Late fees and donations aren't a cost to read the books. You can read them without ever paying those.

    Christian: Hey, man, no worries, I'm having difficulty understanding your point of view as well. So let me ask, if two books are equally awesome, and one is 40 pages long, and the other is 400 pages long, do you think they should be the same price? I don't want to put you in the position of saying that the ideas should be the only consideration in pricing, but that's what I'm getting from your posts.

    I'm not saying that work shouldn't be a factor in pricing. People keep going back to that, but that's simply not part of what I'm saying. Nor is it what I'm looking to discuss here.

    As to your desire to support a designer, that's also something else. You can always become a patron of the arts and donate to artists you think deserve it. That has nothing to do with the issue of whether it's right to charge for the ideas.

    Jason: I don't get what you mean with your TSOY example. If you wanted to support the designer, great. Do you think you would have been stealing from Clinton by not buying it, though?

    On Primitive, I don't really know the game well enough to comment, but I think it's rather the other way around. Kevin was selling it for $10, right? For a hand-made, aesthically pleasing book, that seems low to me.

    Again, the electronic stuff might need another thread. This one is already sprawling about a bit. But a potential loss is a far cry from a real loss.

    Tim: I have several journals and sketch books with very pretty covers full of blank pages. I paid even more for them than the latest volume in my favorite series, because that was a paperback. This actually serves to illustrate my point -- the product is what I bought, not any ideas in it. What I would like is free or cheap (TJ's comments have me currently rethinking my beliefs on PDFs) electronic versions of the books I read, with just a few books on my shelf that I like as objects.

    As to your quoted comment, I don't know where you're getting that from. I never said anything about a desire to make money off a game making someone a bad person. People I like do things I don't agree with all the time, and I don't think this makes them bad people.

    Moreno: I never said things should be sold at cost. I said designers should be selling the product, not the ideas.

    Everyone: I'm not sure I've communicated my ideas clearly, so I'm gonna take a day and think it over. I'll post a clarification Monday night (hopefully), so I won't be commenting until then. Feel free to discuss it with each other until then, though.
  13.  # 13
    I can play the Roach a few times, copy down the important bits, make my own cards, and play it without buying it. I can use your ideas without your product. You can't force me to pay you for the ideas, is what I'm saying.


    As to the artwork, the cost of an original piece takes into consideration the fact that it was actually created by the artist.


    Story Games are art. Or at least can be. It's unlikely that most people who want to play one of these games will have a chance to play it with the person who designed it, so to experience this art you need to buy a copy of the product. Note the product, much like the frame of a painting or the shelf a sculpture sits on, isn't the art. It's the ideas and concepts created and shown inside the product. When you buy a Story Game you are paying an artist for their art. You're not buying the original paper that the ideas were written upon, but thats okay. Those papers are just a physical artifact that has little to do with the art itself. The art is the ideas, not the package.

    What you are advocating here is stealing art. Or, if we want to be more genial about it, not paying tribute to the artist but continuing to enjoy his work. Most of us aren'tcreating these games as public art fixtures to be seen and enjoyed by everyone. Rather, if you want to experience these games you (or someone you know) has to pay the price of admission. That price is set by the designer, and if you think these games are worth playing then you should feel obligated to pay that price. If you want to play a game but don't want to pay the price the games designer is asking then you are stealing the game.

    I think you're way off with the "I don't lose anything" angle for electronic content. I lose a potential sale (the guys who stole it were interested enough to take it; maybe a few of them would have paid for it - we can ask Jake Richmond about this). And worse, my "free" product is in the hands of someone who considers it worthless.


    Someone said my name.

    Jason is right. You absolutely lose potential sales. Shortly after it's release the PDF version of Panty Explosion (which I sell on my site for $10) popped up on dozens of file sharing sites and over the coarse of a few weeks was downloaded a few thousand people (or so these sites claim). At the same time the incredibly steady Panty explosion sales took an extreme nose dive. I received dozens of emails from people on RPG.net, the Forge, here at Story Games and other sites warning me that they had just downloaded a full version of my game and it was available for anyone who wanted it. i quickly contacted the sites and convinced most of them to take down the file and replace it with a tryout version of the game with info on how to buy the full version at my site. I also raised the issue on several gaming forums and became very vocal about the fact that I felt I was losing sales. Within a week sales of Panty explosion recovered, traffic to my website from the file sharing sites hosting the tryout kit shot through the roof and I received email after email of people apologizing for downloadimng the file illegally and offering to pay for a full version.

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with making your game available for free in any format. But if you are charging for your game and someone is taking it without paying then that is theft. You are absolutely losing a potential sale.
  14.  # 14
    Why do you think that when something's electronic it's suddenly nothing but ideas?

    What are you trying to say here? That you'll only pay for things that you can't instantly make copies of?

    Do you think that, without our ideas and layout and artwork and writing skill, that there would ever be any PDFs? Do you honestly place that high a value on tree pulp?
    • CommentAuthorJudd
    • CommentTimeMar 18th 2007
     # 15
    Andrew,

    Charge whatever you like however you like for your game and rock on. One of the things I've liked about the Forge from the very beginning is that no judgement was made on games that published in any number of ways, however the game's creator wanted to get the game out there, be it a free downloadable on a site or a pamphlet thrown at your head at a con or a glossy hard-cover.

    Books, production, the artistic skill that goes into it is buy-able.

    I'm not sure where you want to go from here in the thread (I seem to be writing that a whole lot today).

    Judd
    •  
      CommentAuthorAndy
    • CommentTimeMar 18th 2007
     # 16
    Posted By: Andrew MorrisMoreno: I never said things should be sold at cost. I said designers should be selling the product, not the ideas.


    I guess that's the thing: A lot of us feel that the idea, and the work to put it into paper/PDF in an expressible form, IS the "product".

    Everything after that is just filler.

    -Andy
  17.  # 17
    Posted By: Andrew MorrisLike, if you have a joke, should I pay you a quarter to hear it?


    If I have a joke, or if I wrote a joke?

    I paid more than a quarter to hear Jim Gaffigan's jokes. More than the cost of most DIY games, just to hear his jokes one time.

    And it was awesome. I even talked to him and got his autograph. I'm just sayin'.
    • CommentAuthorexedore6
    • CommentTimeMar 18th 2007
     # 18
    I've rewrote this post a dozen times. Here's the short version.

    If it's worth using, it's worth paying for. Otherwise it's got zero value. The quality of the experience is the most important thing, and this includes the value that the 'product' has. I personally would like more information to decide if a game has value to me before I lay down my hard earned cash, and rpg publishers do this better than anyone else. Copyright infringement isn't stealing, but it is at best ethically grey.

    Also, I hate the "You wouldn't steal a car" ads that I'm forced to watch because I don't steal movies.

    I could go on all night, but that's my condensed 0.02

    Dan
    • CommentAuthorexedore6
    • CommentTimeMar 18th 2007
     # 19
    Matt - if it's a good joke, and you can tell it well, I don't care if you wrote it, I'll pay you.
  20.  # 20

    Andrew, you're not saying that things should be sold at cost, but should be sold at (cost + (what?))

    How do you determine that? When I wrote Under the Bed, I put a bunch of work into it, and then I made it really tiny. If I'd made it really big, should I have charged more for it?

    These are the questions:

    • At the low end: At what point do I lose money making this? This includes everything from the time I could have spent doing more lucrative work to the cost of paper.
    • At the high end: How much can I charge, such that the number of sales I lose because the price is high diminishes my profit by less than the amount that I make by having a higher price?

    There's no set value in dollars for a given product. You have to make it up.

  21.  # 21
    Andrew wrote: Should libraries charge you to borrow a book?

    Libraries do charge you. They charge all taxpayers. And they buy books.

    Sadly the world requires money for food and rent. Otherwise we'd see a lot more free games, art, films and books I reckon.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeMar 19th 2007
     # 22
    Money is a kind of resource allocation. People are allocated abstract resources which they spend, as Matt says, on food and rent. The quantity of resources you are allocated is based on the value a market places on your contributions to society. An "information should be free" position effectively states that information producers should not be allocated resources. Surely that is not a desirable state of affairs?

    I probably wouldn't pay for an idea e.g. "a game about ninja mongeese who hunt werewolves". But I might pay for a game whose author has taken that idea and spent time and effort processing it into a form which is useful and appealing to me. Information is not just ideas.

    On the other hand, you might think that the whole system of market economics is dumb. Without it, information might well be free. But that's a much bigger argument.

    Cheers,
    Steven

    PS. My first post. Hello everyone!
    • CommentAuthorJudd
    • CommentTimeMar 19th 2007
     # 23
    Posted By: Andrew MorrisAs an extension of this, I also think indie games are overpriced, with very few exceptions. In fact, the only one that comes to mind immediately is the first edition of Burning Wheel.


    Andrew,

    What mainstream games aren't over-priced and what is the difference that makes those games worth it and indie games overpriced with few exceptions?
    • CommentAuthorLord Minx
    • CommentTimeMar 19th 2007
     # 24
    Indie Games are overpriced?

    I'm feeling like taking a view into Bizarro land. If anything, I think quite a few of them are underpriced. *shakes head"
  25.  # 25
    Whether or not a game is overpriced is going to be a value-judgement.

    Look at the campaign setting "Masks of Nyarlathotep". Sometimes sold for hundreds of dollars and listed on amazon.co.uk for £112 ($225). Would I buy it at that price? Certainly not. Will others? Oh yes. There are some games I've bought recently where I felt there wasn't much "content" other than "ideas". The books, as books alone, were overpriced, but the ideas and the writing were very valuable. An example is Conspiracy - very slim book, but I love it and I'm glad I paid for it. Would I have paid more, sure. :)

    Joel On Software has an article on software pricing which is pretty much the same market. The ideal price for the producer is exactly the highest price the buyer will pay. The ideal price for the buyer is the lowest price the producer will sell for. These two prices are very seldom the same and finding the balance is a complex process. Selling something for $2 might actually bring in less sales than selling the same thing for $7. I've seen it happen. As a seller you have to create value in the product and attach value to the product by not selling it for less than the market worth.

    This is a really complex/lengthy subject that I'm interested in as a service provider (my co), a software developer (my co) and a RPG writer (myself).
  26.  # 26
    Are ideas free? Hum... They certainly can be copied. As long as you don't use someone's exact words I guess it isn't plagarism. Plagarism is the sincerest for of flattery. As a game designer any idea of mine that is picked up by someone else has snared that person's labor (at least their word of mouth labor). But in the end it still sticks in my claw.

    I started work on my game project 20 years ago. Like everyone else I thought it was good and wanted people to play. I didn't value my words highly and was perfectly okay with people "stealing" them for their own use. I viewed their doing so as spreading the word. The cost of spreading ideas was a stumbling block. There was no internet, printing was very expensive, and word of mouth ineffective. I knew that I had to transfer the costs on to the end user as much as possible. So I wrote magazine articles (readers paid a subscription) ran a newsletter (sold at cost), and ran convention games (I was there anyway so it was free - but we all paid to get in the door). That grass roots campaign cost money. I figured it out a few years ago at minimum wage and determined I had put in $100,000 in unpaid labor.

    I'd kind of like to get paid for that investment of time at somepoint.

    The real trouble with free floating ideas is that they are not valued. My stuff has been around a long time and is known - but it hasn't had the impact of other games. A nicely made artifact does do something for the legitimacy (at least in terms of public perception) an idea has. At the end of the day we are paid for our products rather than our ideas.

    PDFs are a funky thing in my thinking. People think they are cheaper but in fact all they do is transfer the production costs to the end user. What they end up with is a poorly bound paperback. I'm selling this way now but I can't say they I understand why people buy them. I guess I'm just old.

    You can get my rules for free on my web page. You can write your own version of the Matrix Game (I encourage that). But if you copy my words or photocopy my product without paying me then you are a thief and a dirty dog. You'll likely get away with it but let that be on your conscience.

    Chris Engle
  27.  # 27
    >>Anyway, that's where I'm coming from on this. What I'd like to hear are opinions, both from people who agree and those who don't. Really, this is just something I want to discuss, and maybe learn something from.<<

    Wow, I'm not really sure how to address this. What you seem to be missing is people's time has value also. Time is the most valuable thing we have in life. Many games cost more in "time" to create, play test, design and package for sale than do the material costs that comprise the game. And I quite assure you, the time I spend producing games has a price tag on it. Otherwise I would not be earning a salary from publishing and would not be able to house and feed myself and my wife. Would you prefer my wife be homeless and living in the streets because you don't think we should charge more for a game than its physical production costs? That's pretty darn rude.

    If you wish to regard the time you spend designing a game as being worthless, that is entirely your right. Myself, I regard that time as valuable and I might even take offense if you want to tell me otherwise. Now, the "value" the fruits of that labor has in the eyes of others is entirely up to them judge and it will be up to them is there is "enough value" in it to justify the price tag I ask for it.

    But just to give you a cost example. We have a line of board games that retail for $7.95 each. The average board game in this line has a physical production cost of $.60 per unit. Under your assumption we should only charge $.60 for this? That's all the physical materials cost. However, there are also these "other costs" perhaps you have failed to recognize.

    1) My design time.
    2) Cost to mail play test materials to our play testers. Plus the cost of what we give them for their trouble in helping us play test.
    3) Time to order the materials needed to produce the products.
    4) Labor time to run the presses (we produce these in our own print shop).
    5) Cost to assemble
    6) Fiscal carrying cost. We've got money invested in these board games and thats money we can't use until we recover that money when the product is sold. If we and every other company did not make that initial, money risking, investment, you would have ZERO games you could buy EVER. Instead of investing in printed game we could be investing that money in stocks, precious metals or interest bearing investments to make a profit on our money instead.
    7) Domain names, server lease costs, labor (& skill) to design a web page so you might have the opportunity to view this game offering.
    8) Advertising costs.
    9) Shipping costs and risk of loss.
    10) Insurance to protect us against loss of all our machines and/or our large stockpile of games we've invested in. Insurance to protect us against some ninny and a frivelous lawsuit.
    11) Profit. You think we do all of this to "break even"? Thats a lot of work and a lot of money risks not to gain something positive in the end. You know, so I can save up the money so my kids (well, one of these days anyway) will be able to attend college and my wife and I and my partner and his wife will be able to someday afford retirement.

    If you want professionally designed game for free you are dreaming. If you want free games, well, there are plenty of those games out there too and there is certainly nothing wrong with enjoying those instead of that is to your liking and your personal preference with regards to how you prioritize you money. But please don't tell me I don't deserve to make enough money from my job so that I can afford to support my family.

    >>The matter of electronic documents might need its own thread, but basically the difference is that you lose nothing, if someone pirates a copy of your game. If you steal my car, then I don't have a car. If you take a picture of my car, or somehow magically make a copy of it, I still have my car. No harm was done to me in the latter case.<<

    I lose plenty if you illegally steal one of our games in PDF format. Legally we set the value on our time. Designing games for sale is a "SERVICE" and when you steal a PDF (or physical game) you are stealing our service. You wouldn't hire someone to build a house for you and then at the end of the day once your house was complete tell the builder that their SERVICE has no value and you won't be paying them, would you? Of course not, because that would be blantant theft. So why do you think stealing the services provided by a game designer/publuisher, be it a small indie RPG publisher or a corporate giant like Hasbro/WOTC should somehow be allowed.

    Listen, if you don't think the value of the product (the physical format of the game design) or the material presented (the service of creating and organizing the gaming material) has a value equal to that which the creator/publisher is asking for, then you certainly do not have to buy it. But you don't set the price on this stuff and you can't just take it for free. Thats no more legal than walking into a car dealership and saying you will pay them $10 for a brand new Jaguir and when they say no, you take the car anyway. They have an asking price and if you pay it, you legally get to own the product. And, BTW, when you buy a car you are in fact paying for much more than the physical production costs. You are paying for the engineers who organized the design specs on the car and the engineers who figured out how to design and produce the automated assembly line machines and robots to help design the car. You are also paying for a profit for the auto maker and its share holders, a profit for the retailer and its owners/share holders, and when you finiance a car, your interest payments are paying for a NON TANGIBLE service of money lending.

    Games have asking prices as well, be it in print or in electronic dowload and to legally own them you have to agree to pay that asking price. You say you can just photo copy the info from a game or write it down yourself and not pay for the game. No, really, you can't. Not legally. When you photo copy that stuff or write it down yourself you are legally violating copyright law and stealing the game designer's service the exact same as if you stole the physical book itself. THAT IS WHY COPYRIGHT LAW EXISTS. Because the rest of society has come together to agree that the organization and presentation of information has value. Especially creative endevours.

    I suppose you think going to see a movie in a theatre should be free as well? I mean, you don't get to own anything and all you are getting is "ideas".

    Ryan S. Johnson
    Guild of Blades Publishing Group
    http://www.guildofblades.com
    http://www.1483online.com
    http://www.thermopylae-online.com
    • CommentAuthorkomradebob
    • CommentTimeMar 19th 2007
     # 28
    Posted By: MatrixGamer
    PDFs are a funky thing in my thinking. People think they are cheaper but in fact all they do is transfer the production costs to the end user. What they end up with is a poorly bound paperback. I'm selling this way now but I can't say they I understand why people buy them. I guess I'm just old.


    Having just bought a pdf Friday of game that I'd honestly rather have had in print ( it was all of $3 more for the physical copy + s/h), perhaps I can explain.

    I'm not good with delayed gratification. I didn't want to wait for the game to get to me via the vagaries of USPS. I wanted it the same day .

    Now, John Wick of Wicked Dead Press gets around this by offering print, pdf and print+pdf options. If I recall correctly, he also allows for a pdf purchase with later upgrade+upcharge to print if you really like the thing.

    Me, I think that's a good approach.

    Other reasons:
    1) Old stuff back in print
    OOP games can be picked up usually at half or less of the original coverprice. There's no particularly good reason for a company to keep certain low selling games in print. The do have some good reasons for making the same stuff cheaply available as pdf. For example, when I hit a bout of nostalgia, I can pop over to Paizo or one of the other pdf sites and pick up an old '80s-something game for next to nothing. No hunting on e-bay or used book sites. No bidding wars for a crappy beat up copy.

    2) Satisfy my curiosity
    This sort of goes along with #1, but is slightly different. For example, I'd heard a ton of stuff about WW's Adventure! Now I love me some Pulp, but I had no urge to pay cover price to see if I'd like that particular game. I also didn't want to hunt it down since it was OOP. At $12 though, I was willing to look it over. Ditto the New WoD rules. WW put them up for free for October a year or so ago. I checked them out, and ended up buying the new Vampire, just for the heck of it. I wouldn't have done that had they not offered a free or very cheap pdf that I could look over first.
    •  
      CommentAuthorVaxalon
    • CommentTimeMar 19th 2007
     # 29
    I'll just add my voice.

    Let's say I wrote a novel.

    Rather than go through the dead-tree-publishing maze, I decide to put it out as a PDF.

    Given that it's a novel you want to read, and that it's (say) 50,000 words, what would you pay for the PDF?
    • CommentAuthorkomradebob
    • CommentTimeMar 19th 2007 edited
     # 30
    Posted By: VaxalonGiven that it's a novel you want to read, and that it's (say) 50,000 words, what would you pay for the PDF?


    About what I'd pay for a paper back- somewhere between $5-15.

    But I'm a cheap SOB, so...
    •  
      CommentAuthorVaxalon
    • CommentTimeMar 19th 2007
     # 31
    Actually, that's quite generous, Bob... given that Andrew would pay zero, by his logic.
    • CommentAuthorkomradebob
    • CommentTimeMar 19th 2007
     # 32
    Posted By: VaxalonActually, that's quite generous, Bob... given that Andrew would payzero, by his logic.


    Yeah but some of the basic argument is tricky anyway.

    For example, what is the value of a craft of hobby book? I mean, literally, they exist and people buy them. Honest, go to a bookstore and check if any of you don't believe me. And those things are mostly nothing but inspiration and a few technique tips that you may never need to reference after having read them once...
    •  
      CommentAuthorVaxalon
    • CommentTimeMar 19th 2007
     # 33
    I'm going to hold off on posting any more until I've seen Andrew respond. He's got a lot to respond do, I don't want to add on more.
    • CommentAuthorJudd
    • CommentTimeMar 19th 2007
     # 34
    PILE ON ANDREW!!!!!
    • CommentAuthorJDCorley
    • CommentTimeMar 19th 2007
     # 35
    I price PDFs differently than print books because I use them differently. I don't "just print out" a PDF. That is not the main advantage of the format, just like writing in the margins is not the main advantage of a print book.

    The main advantage of PDFs include things like searchability, using a laptop at the table, putting more than one on the screen at the same time, cutting and pasting, printing only the pages you need, etc.

    So the price is different.

    I wouldn't buy a PDF of a novel at any price because the sort of things I do with novels (lounge about on the couch and read them) are not the sort of things I do with PDFs.

    Remember what I said earlier in the thread: the only thing that makes sense is that buyers have a price in mind and so do sellers, and if they don't match, there's no sale, and that's the end of the consequences.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAndy
    • CommentTimeMar 19th 2007
     # 36
    Posted By: JuddPILE ON ANDREW!!!!!


    I'm sorry, I honestly don't want to derail the conversation, but I laughed at this and just had to follow up with:


    Andrew is #17
    • CommentAuthortalysman
    • CommentTimeMar 19th 2007
     # 37

    OK, I just got around to reading this thread, and I think I see a problem.

    You guys are talking about a "dichotomy", but there's really four things here (at least!) and you're treating them as if they were only two things.

    Product. Idea. Service. Experience.

    When Andrew raises the point "would you pay to read a library book?" he's really talking about charging for an experience. When Matt Johnston points out that we do pay for libraries, he's talking about a service. Both of these are different than the product (books that the library purchase) and the ideas contained therein (which I might summarize for someone to encourage them to read a particular book.)

    Now, I have read Thomas Jefferson's argument against copyright, where he claims that ideas are not property, because if someone copies an idea, the person who came up with the idea is not deprived of the idea. I agree with him, but I'm sure Jefferson didn't mean that products and services should have zero value. When a writer comes up with an idea ("A little girl walks through a mirror into a nonsense world where things are the opposite of the way she expects") and then performs a service (composing Alice in Wonderland as one expression of that idea,) I see no problem with paying the writer for the service he provides, or paying a bookstore for a copy of his composition, but I do see a problem with someone forbidding me from explaining the plot to my friend, or charging me for quoting my favorite moments. And, although I see no problem with a group of actors videotaping their humorous performance of Alice in Wonderland and selling the results of their service on a DVD, I definitely see a problem with the DVD distributor rigging the DVD to prevent repeated plays of the DVD unless I pay a fee to unlock the disc each time I want to experience it again.

    So, to apply these thoughts to PDF vs. print products: an RPG writer creates an idea and, as a service, composes text explaining that idea in an entertaining fashion. Even if the idea is a simple one that in theory anyone could do ("100 Famous Fictional Places for d20",) the writer is doing a service, in the form of research, arrangement, statting things out. I have no problem paying the writer for this service, even if I don't get a physical product in exchange for my money, as long as I feel the writer is charging a fair amount for that service. Opinions on what a "fair amount" is are going to vary, but I can't see myself paying any money at all for a PDF that's ten pages or less, because that's not a lot of work. I could do ten pages of work myself, easily, so why would I pay someone else? For longer PDFs that are still not as long as a physical book, I might pay $2-$5, if I feel that writer can do quality work. And, as it happens, this seems to be the typical price range of shorter PDFs, so other people must agree. $10-$15 is about right for a longer PDF.

  38.  # 38
    Let me start this off by saying that I am disappointed by the lack of respect being shown in this thread. I posted this on Story Games because I wanted a friendly discussion of a topic that is important to me. While several of the posters have done this, and I certainly don’t want to dismiss their contributions, the negative comments I’ve read have been disheartening.

    I will try to clarify several things that people have apparently misinterpreted:

    1. I have not said, nor do I believe, that things should be sold at cost.
    2. I have not said, nor do I believe, that costs other than printing shouldn’t be included in the price of a product.
    3. I have not said, nor do I believe, that game designers shouldn’t make money off their games.
    4. I stated in my original post that my thoughts on electronic documents were not fully formed or tightly held. They are, at best, a side topic that is derailing this thread. If you want to talk about that, please start a new thread.


    Jake: While I feel your pain and respect your opinion, what you have shown is a correlation, not a cause-and-effect relationship. I could point to Baen Books offering products in a free online format, and their subsequent drastic increase in sales of those titles in print form. Again, this is just a correlation. There are too many factors to take into consideration to prove anything here. You have your belief, based on your experiences, and I have mine. I respectfully disagree with you, and I hope this doesn’t mean we can’t value each other’s opinions.

    Also, at no point have I advocated stealing. I have simply expressed my beliefs about how things should be priced, and why. If you don’t agree with it, that’s cool. I’m not telling you how to price your games. To be clear, I do believe that people should pay for things, but what I’m addressing here is about pricing.

    On the loss of “potential sales,” I disagree. You cannot show that you have lost sales you would otherwise have made. If I don’t go to my regular poker game, I’ve potentially lost the money I could have won, but in fact, I haven’t lost anything. On your case in particular, we can never know if your actions resulted in the bump in sales. Perhaps you would have had that boost anyway, as people who played the game and liked it enough went to your site and bought a copy. I’m not pointing this out to say that you are wrong, I’m simply illustrating that we cannot prove it one way or another.

    Colin: Based on the more thoughtful comments here, I’m currently rethinking my beliefs on electronic document pricing. I’m still wrestling with the concept that I’m paying for a thing that, technically speaking, does not exist in any physical way. Likening it to paying for a service makes it easier to accept, however. As in point 4 above, however, let’s please take any further discussion of this topic to another thread, so it doesn’t muddy the waters here.

    Judd: I agree with your comments in your first post. As to what I want from this thread, I hope I explained that above. I just want to understand other viewpoints and express my own.

    In your second post, you ask about mainstream games that are overpriced, to my way of thinking. Pretty much all of them, the same as indie games.

    Andy: I don’t know that that’s true, actually. It seems most people are arguing about work, rather than idea, as being part of the cost. This was never my point at all. I agree that work is part of the cost of a product. Maybe I’m misreading comments, but that’s what I’m understanding.

    Matt Wilson: I’d argue that you paid to see him perform his jokes live, not for the jokes directly. Maybe I’m wrong about that, and you’d have been as happy with transcript of the performance, or even watching the show on television. Let me know.

    Daniel: I’m not sure what point you’re making, other than that perceived value is a factor in determining how much someone can charge for something.

    Joshua: I’m not saying what things should cost specifically. That’s up to the seller. What I’m saying is that the calculation should be (production cost + profit = final price), rather than (production cost + value of my ideas + profit = final price). As I state in my points above, the production cost certainly includes things other than simply printing, which is what several people have incorrectly assumed I was saying. I don’t think we’re actually disagreeing at all.

    Matt Johnston: That’s a fair point about libraries. I’m not sure I’d agree that taxes are the same as directly paying a library for reading their books, though. It’s more like taxes are the price you pay to a government for the service of providing a safe and orderly society, and libraries are just one of the benefits you get from that. However, if this would take away from the point, just change it to your local Barnes & Noble store. I go in there all the time and read a chapter or two of a book before deciding if I want to buy it. No one has ever said I’d have to pay for that, or even commented that I was sitting and reading too long. They even give you a café so you can have something to eat and drink while you read. My girlfriend even reads whole books at their stores.

    Steven: If all they are producing is information, then yes, I don’t feel they should be allocated resources. If they take that information and use it to create a product or service, that’s another story. Which, basically, is the main point I’m talking about here. Like, the fact that someone is strong has no direct monetary value. But if they use their strength to move my furniture, then they’ve provided a service that does have monetary value. So, I’m not certain, but I think we agree.

    Aaron: Thank you for expressing your viewpoint. I was looking for stuff like this. Why do you feel that the games are under-priced?

    Chris: Nice post. I’m familiar with your games and your story about marketing them and receiving attention. This is an great example of what I meant when I spoke about pragmatism trumping idealism. Personally, I really think it sucks that you haven’t gotten more acclaim, recognition, and sales. Especially since your game is really one of the first of the “indie games” as we think of them now.

    Ryan: I think you may have missed my point. I never said things like labor shouldn’t be included in the pricing of a product. I have not overlooked the other costs involved; in fact, these are the things which I believe should be included in pricing.

    Fred: If I really wanted to read it (for example, if I’d enjoyed your previous works, and this one sounded as good), I’d probably pay whatever I could afford. But that’s not the point I’m talking about here. Consumer willingness to pay has nothing to do with it. That’s a factor in real-world pricing, sure. If I have a canteen of water, and I find a guy suffering from dehydration, I’m sure I could sell the water for a ridiculous price, because he wants it so much. That doesn’t make it right.

    On your second post, please don’t put words into my mouth. As you can see from my response above, the answer is not zero.

    Jason: Good points about the utility of PDF versus print.

    John: Awesome post, and very thought-provoking. I’m exhausted from replying to everyone so far, so I can’t really comment right now. But I think you have, indeed, hit on something. I’m going to digest it for a while.
  39.  # 39
    Andrew, let me start by saying that I'm enjoying this conversation quite a bit.

    While I feel your pain and respect your opinion, what you have shown is a correlation, not a cause-and-effect relationship.


    You are right in this. All I can do is offer my anecdotal evidence about my own experience. I think my case is pretty compelling. When the PDF became publicly available my sales disappeared. When the publicly available PDF was replaced by a demo PDF with a link to the site were you could buy the full version then my sales made a huge rebound. My site traffic at the time showed a huge amount of incoming traffic from file sharing sites that where hosting the demo version and had been hosting the full version. I certainly can't prove people stealing my game was causing my to lose sales, but I can prove that once the game was no longer available to steal my sales went back up. Of course, just because this was true for my game does not mean it would be true for other games. But in this case I do believe this is what happened.

    I could point to Baen Books offering products in a free online format, and their subsequent drastic increase in sales of those titles in print form. Again, this is just a correlation. There are too many factors to take into consideration to prove anything here.


    Again, this would be absolutely hard to prove without a lot more research, but it is the logical conclusion.

    You have your belief, based on your experiences, and I have mine. I respectfully disagree with you, and I hope this doesn't’t mean we can’t value each other’s opinions.


    Of course. But just so I know, since my belief is based on my experiences, what is yours based on? What is your counter here? Do you have experiences or anecdotal evidence or theory that you would like to share on this specific matter? If not, that's okay. You have said that the PDF issue wasn't one you were overly decided on. So if you don't want to talk about it now I won't press the issue anymore.

    Also, at no point have I advocated stealing.


    This following bit here is the part that makes it sound like you are advocating stealing:


    For example, I can play the Roach a few times, copy down the important bits, make my own cards, and play it without buying it. I can use your ideas without your product. You can't force me to pay you for the ideas, is what I'm saying. So if it's not the ideas I'm buying, then it must be the product, right?

    The matter of electronic documents might need its own thread, but basically the difference is that you lose nothing, if someone pirates a copy of your game. If you steal my car, then I don't have a car. If you take a picture of my car, or somehow magically make a copy of it, I still have my car. No harm was done to me in the latter case.



    If I don’t go to my regular poker game, I’ve potentially lost the money I could have won, but in fact, I haven’t lost anything.


    Except the potential to win money. If someone is interested enough in my game to steal it, then they may be interested enough to buy it. This won't always be the case of course. Maybe only one out of 10 people who illegally downloaded Panty Explosion would really be interested enough in buying it. Maybe only 1 in 50. Those are still potential lost sales. Even if that were not the case, I DO NOT WANT PEOPLE DOWNLOADING MY GAME WITHOUT PAYING FOR IT! It belongs to me, and I have made the choice to sell it. You don't get to have a copy unless you pay for it. That's the deal. That's my choice.

    What I’m saying is that the calculation should be (production cost + profit = final price), rather than (production cost + value of my ideas + profit = final price).


    I don't think anyone prices their product in either of these ways, although I could be wrong. For me, the creative process is very much a part of the production process. Infact, the creative process, the act of thinking about the game for weeks and months and assembling it in my head, is much more work and takes much more time then the writing, playtesting, editing, layout, proof reading and all other aspects of putting a product together combined. matt and I spent 9 months working on Panty Explosion, but less then 30 days were spent actually writing the book. I can't speak for anyone else but myself I guess, but the idea is definitely the art. Everything else is just the frame. When you buy one of my games what you are getting is the physical manifestation of the idea. Without the idea the product is just paper and ink.

    To be continued...

    jake
  40.  # 40
    So for me the equation is more: idea+labor+resources=production cost. production cost+desired profit=final price.

    If all they are producing is information, then yes, I don’t feel they should be allocated resources. If they take that information and use it to create a product or service, that’s another story. Which, basically, is the main point I’mtalking about here. Like, the fact that someone is strong has no direct monetary value. But if they use their strength to move my furniture, then they’ve provided a service that does have monetary value. So, I’m not certain, but I think we agree.


    You are saying that if someone takes their idea and turns it into a product then it is worth allocating resources to them. But earlier you said that the idea itself shouldn't be considered in the final value of the product. Here's your quote again:

    What I’m saying is that the calculation should be (production cost + profit = final price), rather than (production cost + value of my ideas + profit = final price).


    How do you reconcile these two points? Or am I missing what you are saying?




    Jake
  41.  # 41
    Hi Andrew,

    Ok, I think I see where you are coming from, but I also think you are really, really missing the work, creativity and value of service that is applied to a basic idea. I agree, ideas should for the most part be free (Patents of limited duration being acceptible to protect some ideas merely so the cost of development can be justified so the world might actually get to use the idea in a material way). However, "a bunch of make believe characters in a fantasy setting go off and have adventures, explore dungeons and slay monster and bad guys and get rewarded with extra skills, powers and money" is the basic idea behind D&D (and numerous other RPGs). That idea is certainly free and after thumbing through a copy of Dungeons & Dragons on a shelf to get the gist of the idea there would be absolutely nothing wrong with going home and taking that idea and doing with it what you will. However, the idea at its core is rather simple and not worth much. Even really novel or innovative ideas themselves, even those that launch multi billion dollar industries, are at best the just the potential for something. It is the application of the idea that becomes worth something. It is the application of the idea that people pay for. So in your example of that one game, if you like the basic premise of the game and even its mix of game + cards, you could take that idea and go make your own game based on that idea. But when you talk of writing down what the creator had put on the actual cards, that crossed over into stealing his intellectual propety. Stealing his application of the idea, or portions thereof.

    >>On the loss of “potential sales,” I disagree. You cannot show that you have lost sales you would otherwise have made.<<

    If someone steals a PDF game or computer software and uses it illegally, the only thing that can be proven is 1) The person who stole it and used it obviously thought it had *some* value or else they would not be using it. 2) The creator of the electronic thing that was stolen was not compensated at all for the use of their work; for the application of their ideas. It is true that we can not truly prove that if the electronic product was not able to be stolen that it would still have held enough value for you to have paid the actual asking price for it. Only the person that stole it would be able to answer that question and surely in the court of law, they would answer Nay just to protect their behind. But since the item that was stolen was in fact used and thus had SOME VALUE to the thief and since the creator of the item was not compensated at all, it becomes pretty clear that THAT is not a fair equation. Thus the only fair way for the market and the law to handle the situation is to assume the item in question has a value equal to what the seller is asking for, because absolutely nothing is forcing the thief to steal it and in theory, in a free market environment, you should have other choices available, including potentially public domain variations on those ideas which are free.

    >>In your second post, you ask about mainstream games that are overpriced, to my way of thinking. Pretty much all of them, the same as indie games.<<

    We get it. You don't really assign the same value to the work/design creation process that the market that actually spends money on such games does. Which, of course, is a value judgement that you are entirely free to make. I think the very reason you have come to think this is traced back to the fact that you have designed a game. Back when I was a teen and before I had ventured into the realm of professional publishing, I had designed dozens of games. And I thought the same as you, that designing games was easy. It was even fun. Why should people get paid the big bucks to do that? Then I became a publisher and had a number of wake up calls. The creative idea is merely the first step in many that are required to bring a product to market. And a professional game designer has to understand much more than what makes a playable game, but they need to understand what makes a "marketable game", as well as understand production formats and what makes a game realistic and even cost effective to produce and distribute. And even after all of that, capital must be risked to publish the title. And after that, it becomes an ongoing struggle for the duration of the time that the title will be sold, to market and ditribute that title. In my years as a publisher I have designed, written or assisted in the creative process in well over 200 game products and yet, day in and day out, I spend 90% of my time on company management, product and supply logistics, marketing, web design, etc, etc. I suspect your opinion has been formed merely because you see the designing of games as easy, but lack a more informed base of knowledge behind everything else that goes into making the games you see for sale available to the public.

    In the publishing world most people will tell you, "ideas" are a dime a dozen. Most worth less than the paper they are written on. And generally, I agree with that. In 13 years of publishing we have probably been approached by more than 200 times by people with a "great idea" for a game. 99% of them have been a weaker version of something thats already been done and anyone who had any exposure to the broader game market would see that within the first sentence of two of the pitch. A recent e-mail I recieved that I got a chuckle out of was someone trying to pitch an idea for a collectible card game where basically each deck represented a wizard who used elemental magic and creatures to try and defeat the opposing wizard. Sound familiar, anyone? Anyone? Lol. Thats why on our company page we plainly state we're not interested in unsolicited submissions. Only after an idea has been practically applied does it begin to have value. How much value will depend on how useful the original idea was coupled with the work that went into its development and utility value of the final presentation.

    >>What I’m saying is that the calculation should be (production cost + profit = final price), rather than (production cost + value of my ideas + profit = final price).<<

    See, you've missed some key parts of equation. Here, it should read as follows:

    Development Cost + Capital Investment + Marketing Outlay = Production Cost

    Warehousing + Insurance + Distribution + Ongoing Marketing = Maintenance Cost.

    Production Cost + Maintenance Cost = COGS (Cost of Goods Sold).

    (Sales Price x Units Sold) Total Revenues - COGS - Operational Overhead = Net profit.

    Net profit - Taxes on Net Profit = Post Tax Profits

    Percieved Value of Idea + Return on Capital Investment = Desired Profit

    With a perfect busines plan: Desired Profit = Post Tax Profits

    Basically speaking, some people will value their capital investment more than the idea being applied to the product. Some people will value the idea more than the capital. Others will value their sweat equity (their work time spent vs hiring employees to do the work) more. In reality, it will be impossible to tell which of element is being valued more by the seller when they are establishing their suggested retail pricing for their products.

    Ryan S. Johnson
    Guild of Blades Publishing Group
    http://www.guildofblades.com
    http://www.1483online.com
    http://www.thermopylae-online.com
  42.  # 42
    >>If all they are producing is information, then yes, I don’t feel they should be allocated resources. If they take that information and use it to create a product or service, that’s another story.<<

    In truth, I can not think of a single piece of information that isn't having some value added to it in some way. When I turn on the TV and watch a news program I am getting commentary and video footage and the information is being delivered "to me" instead of me having to go find it. When I buy a history book, I get facts and information compiled in a format that is digestable and easy to understand. The value of the formation of that information would not decrease if that book was a PDF instead of paper, though the utility value of how comfortable I can get and where I may read it does decrease. When I go get information on google, I have the near volume of the internet searchable at my finger tips. Those are all "value add" services, all of them.

    I guess my question is, can you think of any single instance of "information" which is available to you which required that has no value add whatsoever? Even if the value add is as simple as making the information easily available to you as opposed to you having to go get it? I can't think of a single instance. It certain that some information does not interest _ME_ and thus has no value to me, but certainly has value to someone else.

    Looked at another way, news reporters do nothing really but provide information. But when (on rare occassion) i can get unbiased news reports from Iraq, North Korea, China, or some other far flung place on earth, what is the value of that information? Well, to get that information myself, I would likely need to be able to speak the local language and then either know someone that I could call (international rates) or fly there myself and investigate. And I know thats not cheap. So I have absolutely no problem with seeing information providers being allocated resources propostionate to the value they add, as judged by the free market. I contribute to that compensation for that information that has direct value to me.

    Ryan S. Johnson
    Guild of Blades Publishing Group
    http://www.guildofblades.com
    http://www.1483online.com
    http://www.thermopylae-online.com
  43.  # 43
    Ok, here's where I'm getting lost.

    If this is really about information being free, then any charge over cost may be considered inappropriate. However, since you acknowledge the role of profit in pricing, and we're really just talking about how much profit you sell it for then we're in pretty fuzzy territory, especially since you describe a very wide swath of products as "overpriced".

    From here, this looks like there is some number that you consider an ok level of profit, but I have no sense of what that number may be, or how you arrived at it. I admit, it would be pretty useful to have such a yardstick since it would allow us to point to the specifics and separate an impression from an analysis. This isn't meant as a dig. It's just that I think you're trying to say something more substantial than "RPGs are priced higher than I want them to be" and I'm trying to figure out what that is.

    Specifically, what about this objection is specific to RPGs as opposed to any other form of media?

    Just to illustrate, take art - why I'm paying for more than paint, canvas, and an hourly wage? And hell, why am I paying more than color copying prices for prints. And don't even get me started on photography.

    Is that the same question?


    -Rob D.
    •  
      CommentAuthorVaxalon
    • CommentTimeMar 20th 2007
     # 44
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_wants_to_be_free

    "I believe that all generally useful information should be free. By 'free' I am not referring to price, but rather to the freedom to copy the information and to adapt it to one's own uses."

    Information pirates have misconstrued the meaning of "free" in this context. The OGL is an excellent example of the hacker ethic in action... you buy a book, take information from it, make it better, and put it out again under the OGL, and the whole process goes around again and again.
    • CommentAuthorexedore6
    • CommentTimeMar 20th 2007
     # 45
    When we're throwing about the phrase 'ideas' are we all talking about the same thing?

    Are A Fistfull of Dollars and Yojimbo the same movie? Same idea. Different product. Both awesome.

    Andrew, if I came off as going after you, I apologize. I've been trying to deal with this sort of thing for too long (How do you convince a 14 year old that it's wrong to bootleg music and movies when the producers of same treat all their customers like thieves and mistreat the talent, while releasing products of marginal quality??)

    It seems that one of the things that makes you uncomfortable is that you're paying money for something that doesn't 'exist' in the real world. With DRM-free products, I find it the opposite. I can burn it to a compact disc, keep a copy on my thumbdrive, or even print out and make a bound copy of the book. If the object wears out, I can just make another copy. If the object doesn't make sense for a particular application, I can put it in a different form. As a bonus, I get it right away, and it can't be out of stock. It's more work to get a table copy, but I'm okay with that.

    As far as my point goes, this whole thing is sort of a hot button issue with me, I tend to rant (an example of the value of ideas vs. presentation of the ideas in a digestible form I suppose). For me, it was more a response to your post turning into something about copyright infringement. I get tweaked when people don't respect a creators wishes about the distribution of their work.

    That said, I hate it when a person who holds the copyright for a work equates copyright infringement with theft. Assuming that the person doesn't share the game, the most harm that was done to the copyright holder is that they lost the potential to sell that product to that person. If I take a $20 pdf, it is not the same as me reaching into your wallet and taking a $20 bill. I am still harming you, and I'm breaking the law, but I'm not stealing. I could decide that your product isn't for me, and the harm to the creator is the same. Posting a bootleg pdf on the internet would hurt you more of course, but it's still not theft. Copyright is there to make sure that the copyright holder gets to set the terms of the work's distribution.

    If property rights applied to ideas (by ideas, I'm referring to anything that could be trademarked, patented, or copyrighted), then we wouldn't need any trademark, patent, or copyright law. To pretend that they are the same thing does everyone a disservice, and only confuses an already complex issue.

    Woah, I seem to be ranting again.

    I think that some products are underpriced, and some products are overpriced, and it depends on the person buying the product. (I think that everything that Games Workshop is overpriced, but the last time I was at my FLGS, I saw a guy happily drop $300 on an army. We clearly disagree on the value of GW's products.)

    And that's okay.
  46.  # 46
    Posted By: Andrew MorrisMatt Wilson: I’d argue that you paid to see him perform his jokes live, not for the jokes directly. Maybe I’m wrong about that, and you’d have been as happy with transcript of the performance, or even watching the show on television. Let me know.


    I bought his CDs. They cost more than the cost to make CDs. I'm happy paying that amount.

    I saw Eddie Izzard perform, but I also bought the DVD.
  47.  # 47
    First, let me thank everyone for bringing this thread back a nicer, more accessible format. I really do appreciate that.

    Second, I’ll make a blanket statement about electronic documents and such. I’m not going to address that specific issue any further in this thread. Obviously, everyone has an opinion, and I do like hearing them, but I can’t deal with both in one thread. I’ll happily jump in on a thread if someone else wants to continue that part of this discussion, but for now, I’m sticking to the main point.

    I only have three free hours each day, and I spent all of them yesterday reading, considering, and responding as fully as I was able. I really don’t want to do that again today.

    Jake: As stated, let’s continue the talk about electronic products in another thread, if you’d like. Maybe in a day or two? I’ve already gotten some great opinions and viewpoints, and as I said, things are still mixing about in my head on this topic.

    I think part of the problem I’m having conveying what’s in my head is that what I’m talking about is abstract, rather than concrete. Coupled with the fact that online is a terrible format for such discussions, it’s not surprising that this is so difficult to convey. Of the people I’ve spoken to about this topic face to face, it only takes a few minutes to get my point across, whether they agree with it or not.

    You say, “When you buy one of my games what you are getting is the physical manifestation of the idea.” I agree with that. I am buying the physical object, not the idea. Obviously one is the result of applying the other. But if you’re saying I have to pay for the right to access that idea, that’s simply crazy to me. No one has the power or the right to charge me for receiving ideas. For clarification, I’m talking “moral right,” not “legal right.”

    “You are saying that if someone takes their idea and turns it into a product then it is worth allocating resources to them. But earlier you said that the idea itself shouldn't be considered in the final value of the product. … How do you reconcile these two points? Or am I missing what you are saying?”
    I’m not sure if you’re missing anything, but I’ll answer your question, which might make my position clearer. I don’t see any conflict between those points, personally. Taking an idea and turning that into a product is work. Work is something that, unlike an idea, does have a direct monetary value. That value is calculated into the cost of the product. Again, the product is what I am paying for, not the idea. Certainly you couldn’t have created the same product without that idea. Still, you are buying the product of their work, not their ideas. In the same way that you are not buying the strength of a mover, just the service of moving furniture.

    (More to come)
  48.  # 48
    Ryan: You say, “It is the application of the idea that becomes worth something. It is the application of the idea that people pay for.” I agree with that, as I mentioned in my response to Jake, above.

    On your comments about copyright law, I’m certainly not qualified to state with certainty how the laws are written, or how they work in practice. But the legal aspect, as I mention, is not what I’m talking about here. This is more philosophy than real-world pragmatism. If me copying something down for my own use is illegal, I’m shocked to discover that’s how the law is worded, and I find that unpleasant in the extreme. Is it the act of writing it down that is illegal? Like, if I have perfect recall, and I memorize a book, is that also illegal? I’m not being flippant here, I’m actually curious.

    “We get it. You don't really assign the same value to the work/design creation process that the market that actually spends money on such games does.”

    Not at all. I am a part of that market. I have spent quite a bit of money on RPG books. I do value the work that goes into making games. That is part of what I am paying for when I buy an RPG book.

    You say, “And I thought the same as you, that designing games was easy.” I don’t think that at all. I do not dismiss or fail to recognize the hard work that you and others do as full-time game designers.

    “Only after an idea has been practically applied does it begin to have value. How much value will depend on how useful the original idea was coupled with the work that went into its development and utility value of the final presentation.”

    I think this quote is particularly useful, since it seems to highlight the difference in our opinions, and I agree with many of your other statements. My point of view is that the idea still doesn’t have monetary value – the application of it does. Maybe we’re coming to the same conclusions through different paths, since in practice, there is little difference at the end of the line – we both think the product has value, I believe. Perhaps we simply see that value as coming from different places.

    On your comment that I have overlooked part of the equation, that is inaccurate. I simply include all of those in “production cost” as in “all costs associated with production” for the sake of convenience. This includes the factors you list: marketing, time, warehousing, etc.

    I can’t address your second post fully, without delving into the matter of electronic documents, but I’ll try to address the general point. I’m not saying that there is pure source of information or anything sweeping like that. What I’m saying is that it is the “value add,” as you put it, that has the monetary worth. Quite literally, you are adding monetary value to something that has none on its own.

    Rob: Yeah, I totally agree that it’s fuzzy territory. In fact, it can be difficult or impossible as a consumer to determine the truth of the matter. But I’m just going from statements I’ve heard designers make in the past – that the idea is what you’re paying for, rather than the book, which is just a necessary device for containing the idea, rather than my position, that it is the book that gives any value at all to “idea + book.”

    ” Specifically, what about this objection is specific to RPGs as opposed to any other form of media?”

    It’s not necessarily specific to RPGs as opposed to other media. RPGs are just the ones I care about and want to discuss, is all. It’s also not a specific price point that I have a problem with. I realize I conveyed that badly. That’s probably because, as I stated in my first post, this is something I’ve been thinking about, and wanted to learn more about. In fact, this discussion has helped me identify the core of the issue. And it really is an ideological thing. So I posted things that I sorta-kinda recant. Like the comment about overpricing. The actual price tag, I’ve realized, has little to do with that viewpoint. A $100 RPG that doesn’t include the idea as part of the pricing is fine, while a $1 RPG that does, isn’t. So certainly a good portion of the confusing, sprawling nature of this thread has to do with the fact that (in my head), I was saying “hey, here’s a thought…let’s talk about it” while giving that impression that I was saying “here’s my manifesto and anyone who doesn’t conform is evil!”

    Fred: I’m not talking about anything to do with that movement. I’m putting forward my idea and asking to discuss it, not putting forward a doctrine.

    Daniel: Again, the electronic document stuff would be great in another thread, and I’ll happily contribute there, if someone wants to start it. Especially since you’ve got some stuff in there I’d love to discuss. I’m forcing myself to keep this thread on topic, though.

    As to whether those movies are the same idea, I guess it really depends on the scale, in a sense. From a high-level viewpoint, certainly they are the same idea. From a close-up viewpoint, no, they’re not. At the high level, they’re both, “fighter comes to a town in crisis,” closer up they’re “fighter enters a town being torn apart by a feud,” and closer still, they differ in the specifics of what happens and the aftermath of that – one is “fighter uses feud for his own purposes” and the other is “fighter attempts to end the feud.” Does that make sense?

    Matt Wilson: Right, as my previous responses have hopefully shown, I’m not saying products should be sold at cost. You bought the service of the performance, and also the product of the recording.
  49.  # 49
    Thanks for taking the time to read and reply. Going through all of this can be draining, I know.

    You say, “When you buy one of my games what you are getting is the physical manifestation of the idea.” I agree with that. I am buying the physical object, not the idea. Obviously one is the result of applying the other. But if you’re saying I have to pay for the right to access that idea, that’s simply crazy to me. No one has the power or the right to charge me for receiving ideas. For clarification, I’m talking “moral right,” not “legal right.”


    I disagree. I had an idea, which I manifested in the form of a 96 page game called Panty Explosion. I've decided that the only way I want to share that idea is by charging people $20.00 for a copy of the book. The book itself is not the idea, just the vessel that contains it. When you buy the book you get the paper, the ink, the glue and the idea. For me the idea is the part of that that is worthwhile. Do you really disagree?

    Taking an idea and turning that into a product is work. Work is something that, unlike an idea, does have a direct monetary value. That value is calculated into the cost of the product. Again, the product is what I am paying for, not the idea.


    Again, I disagree. I think you are mistaking the frame for the painting. Or more accurately, admiring the finished product without being able to acknowledge all the work that went into it. I don't know how it is for you, but for m generating the ideas that resulted in the finished versions of my game were a lot of work. Much more work then the typing, layout and printing. As I said before, Matt and myself spent 9 months developing Panty explosion, and 7 of those were just talking about the game and developing it as an idea. For me game creation is largely a mental process. I think about a game for weeks or months, I develop it as an idea, and once I think it's complete I type it up and test it. This always leads to another long round of thinking about the ideas and developing them in my head. The playtesting, typing, editing and other aspects of a games development are a very small percentage of the work compared to the time spent thinking about and developing the ideas. Which is real work. Hard work. My ideas are developed and refined through a process of hard work before they ever are translated to a physical artifact. The idea is the work. Even if that is not true for anyone else, it is certainly true for me.

    Certainly you couldn’t have created the same product without that idea. Still, you are buying the product of their work, not their ideas.


    The ideas ARE the product of work. Besides, ithout the ideas the product is worthless. Random words on a page. Random paint on a canvas. If you are interested in purchasing a copy of Panty Explosion "without the ideas" I will gladly sell you a blank 96 page book at cost.


    Jake
    • CommentAuthorMcdaldno
    • CommentTimeMar 20th 2007
     # 50
    Andrew, I see what you're saying.

    And I'm not sure that I agree, but I'm definitely seeing the basis for it. Let me try and explore it from a different angle.

    So, I'm not down with the comodification of art.
    It's not the practice of selling art that rubs me the wrong way, but the (assumed?) necessity of selling art.
    Worth is primarily established by a price tag in our society. And secondly by like renown and prestige.

    The fact that the "highest level" of learning costs $5,000+ a year and you get a degree at the end of the process... it speaks to what I mean.

    I totally think ideas have worth. Lots of worth. Andrew, allow me to put words in your mouth here:
    I don't think you're objecting to the concept that ideas have worth, but to the idea that ideas should be comodified.

    Am I way off base here?

    If I were to call you up on the telephone (Canada has that technology now!) and say, "Andrew, care to listen to my idea for five minutes?", chances are you might say yes (if you respected me, and thought I had interesting ideas).

    You're giving value to my ideas right there, in a way. Through like... respect, and time, and reflection, and engagement of those ideas.

    Now, if I were to try to sell you an idea, that'd be different. Not because I was adding more worth, but because I was comodifying that worth, and that's... well, it's kind of insulting, almost, right? Like... you're willing to give my ideas plenty of time and attention, but when I expect you to pay-for-entry to them, it can make me look like a bit of a prick. It's like I'm exploiting your attention, right?

    Am I near the mark here?
    •  
      CommentAuthorVaxalon
    • CommentTimeMar 21st 2007
     # 51
    You guys keep saying that ideas (and by that I mean "seed ideas", the ideas that form the foundation for work) have value, and that may be so, but not much. Ideas are cheap. Go into any publishing house, go to the "unsolicited manuscripts" department, and you'll see piles and piles of them. The vast majority get thrown in the trash.

    What's expensive are ideas which are skillfully and to some degree completely expressed. It's the EXPRESSION that's hard work, that has value, not the IDEA.
  52.  # 52
    What's expensive are ideas which are skillfully and to some degree completely expressed. It's the EXPRESSION that's hard work, that has value, not the IDEA.


    Fred, I think what you are refering to as the "expression of ideas" is what I'm refering to as simply "ideas". But maybe I'm wrong. When I say "ideas" I'm refering to the entire mental creative process that for me is 90% of the work. I'm refering to the full development of the game that happens in my head before I ever touch the keyboard. I'm refering to the months of hard thought and the carefully worded paragraphs that I store in my brain before I ever start to transcribe them onto paper. This reprresents way, way more effort and work then any typing, playtesting or publishing stuff. And it's all ideas. Every bit of it. It seems to me that Andrew is saying that this is the part that is unimportant, and I just don't agree.

    You guys keep saying that ideas (and by that I mean "seed ideas", the ideas that form the foundation for work) have value, and that may be so, but not much.


    Certainly "idea seeds" are only valuable if you do something with them. "Psychic Japanese schoolgirl panty game" is not in and of itself a very good idea. The ideas that sprang from that have proven to be very worthwhile. "Mormon law enforcers in an old west that never was" isn't a real gem either, but the ideas that came out of it certainly were. Those ideas had to exsist before these games could exsist. One idea built upon another until there was a complete game. You can't dismiss the ideas that went into the game because in a very real sense the game is nothing BUT ideas! It seems like Andrew is trying to argue that it's only the last few steps of the development, the physical steps once the ideas are already in place, that are worthwhile. But I may be wrong. Andrew, feel free to correct me.



    Jake
  53.  # 53
    Reading over my posts I realize I'm just argueing the same points over and over again. I think mostly just for fun at this point. I guess I should bow out. If anybody actually wants to talk to me about this more feel free to email me.


    Thanks for the good arguement Andrew.
    • CommentAuthorD-503
    • CommentTimeMar 21st 2007 edited
     # 54
    I'm not sure I get the arguments here.

    RPG books, indie or otherwise, have prices attached to them.

    If I consider the value to me from that book to be worth that price, I buy it. If I don't, I don't.

    If overall enough consumers find the value to be worth the price, the book makes a return, if not, then not.

    It's as simple as that surely. Underpriced, overpriced, these are in a sense meaningless concepts on their own. The real question is whether a given game is priced at a point which generates sufficient sales to be worth the author's time, and then different authors come to different views on that.

    Otherwise, ideas have relatively little value in themselves, it's the execution. When we buy a game book we buy an execution of an idea, we may if it matters to us and the choice is available pay a premium in order to have that execution expressed in hardcopy rather than pdf or whatever, but the core element is the executed idea. Edit: And to be clear, I don't mean simply the physical vessel containing the idea, I mean the means in which conceptually that idea is realised as a playable game or scenario or whatever. The PCs go in a hole, kill some orcs and take phat loot is an idea. A scenario containing maps, encounters, treasure tables and so on is an execution of that idea, the book all that is printed in is the physical manifestation of that execution. Separating them is pretty artificial, but essentially the book is a delivery mechanism for that particular execution.

    In fact, many indie games are available both in pdf form and in hardcopy, where so the price differential between the two is the assumed value of the physical object as opposed to the ideas contained within it.
    •  
      CommentAuthorVaxalon
    • CommentTimeMar 21st 2007
     # 55
    On that note, I should point out that most of the bigger book publishers price their ebooks at the same price point as their hardcovers, until the paperback comes out, at which point it drops to the price of the paperback.
  56.  # 56
    The recent posts have got me thinking about the idea "value added"

    Ideas are dime a dozen - So my raw idea is worth less than a penny. If a product had say 100 ideas it might be worth a dollar (at that rate). But take those hundred ideas and house them in a book (a physical artifact that can be referreed to again and again) and value is added. If game design takes a lot of time, does that add value? It certain has opportunity costs for the designer but that alone does not mean value.

    The notion that ideas are or should be free is idealistic. Personally I think it is incorrect. We share ideas to communicate - getting respect like was mentioned above. While I would hate to reduce everything to market terms - time and energy are market terms. Everyone reading this thread is "spending" their time. But are we adding value by doing so.

    Publishers publish for profit. It is a business plan and simple. They take raw ideas and add value to them by putting them together well and then peddle the end item to the public. Could the public have made the item themselves? Probably. Could they have made it as good? Probably not.

    I ran a thread over on the Forge entitled "Presentation is important" to mimic the idea that system is important. The thread didn't go long or product much but for an idea to prosper it really does need an effective value added delivery system. Once a person crosses the line between communicating to selling an idea it is about money. Taking from that person hurts their livelyhood. I don't believe idealism stands up well to this kind of challenge. If I was on a jury deciding a case like this - I'm afraid I'd be on the side supporting property rights. Otherwise we are shitting on those who add value.

    It is interesting that the hacker ethos of free ideas is not more supported here. Maybe we are all too close to being owners?

    Chris Engle
    •  
      CommentAuthorVaxalon
    • CommentTimeMar 21st 2007
     # 57
    I think the hacker ethic of free ideas is DEFINITELY supported here... many of us share our ideas for the express purpose that they will be taken, improved, and put back into the community for the benefit of all. If that's not hacker ethic I don't know what is.
    • CommentAuthorkomradebob
    • CommentTimeMar 21st 2007
     # 58
    Andrew:

    How does your opinion of pricing of rp games ( mainstream or indie) compare to your feelings about say the pricing of boardgames, or hobby instruction manuals ( like those I mentioned a few posts back).

    If it differs, why and in what way?

    No trap here- I'm honestly curious.
  59.  # 59
    Hi Andrew,

    >>If me copying something down for my own use is illegal, I’m shocked to discover that’s how the law is worded, and I find that unpleasant in the extreme. Is it the act of writing it down that is illegal? Like, if I have perfect recall, and I memorize a book, is that also illegal? I’m not being flippant here, I’m actually curious.<<

    Merely copying an idea is not illegal. Copying the "expression" of the idea is. So, if you read an idea in a book, then write down notes (or even a fully detailed expression of it), but you do so writing it down completely in your on wording and expression without copying the original expression, that is not copyright violation at all. In this sense, the US government completely agrees that ideas are free. But if you copy the words and sentences as structured (or a goodly portion of it), then you are not just copying an idea, but you are copying a persions expression of that idea, and thus are taking their creation without their permission. Reading and remembering the expression of an idea is absolutely OK, and if the expression was done well, you remembering it may even be a good sign of its worth. Now, you copying something down for your own use and you not distributing it, sharing it, or trying to profit from it will likely mean, if the violation can be proven in th court of law, the original IP holder is extremely unlikely to get any fiscal reward, but the court might slap you on the wrist with a minor punitive judgement merely as a small reminder that you did break society's law.

    >>You say, “And I thought the same as you, that designing games was easy.” I don’t think that at all. I do not dismiss or fail to recognize the hard work that you and others do as full-time game designers.<<

    I am rather curious why you think most games are over priced then? At first I thought you must think that because you did not value the creative process which led to the product's inception. But now I have no clue. From a practical stand point I can tell you that hobby games, in general, are a tiny industry and that the vast, vast majority of publishers don't make a living at their creation. And many who do make a living make a substandard one. Comparing the hobby game industry to that of nearly any other, it would beg to argue that games on average are under priced. Personally, I really don't believe that. I think narrow market games are priced high on average, but mass media games (most trading card games, Risk, Monopoly) are actually priced a little low. My opinion is that hobby publihers that wish to grow their financial gross income high enough to sustain a company need to maintain prices that are at least low enough that the products can be marketed to audiences outside the die hard core niche for such products.

    >>My point of view is that the idea still doesn’t have monetary value – the application of it does. Maybe we’re coming to the same conclusions through different paths, since in practice, there is little difference at the end of the line – we both think the product has value, I believe. Perhaps we simply see that value as coming from different places.<<

    That is entirely possible. From a real world business view of the matter, value to a product is coming from a number of sources. These may not all be seen as values to the "consumer" as applied to the final product, but they are valued that ultimately go into the process of making the product available to the consumer. They are "creative application of an idea", "Capital and labor investment" and "Percieved utility value of the final product". Businesses will value each of these three things differently, but in truth, most well run business will set their retail price on a product based on that last one. And while the original idea is certainly a part of the utility value of the final product, it is not neccessarily the most influential element. Sometimes an idea can be very basic, but due to real world material supply and demand costs, the physical components that go into the creation of the final product may be the primary driver of the actual selling price. In other cases the utility value is driven more by the application of idea than the materials that comprise the product. So ultimately, in the broad spectrum of products available, there is no simple and universal equation of how much or what percentage you are paying for the application of the idea itself. But it is nearly universally true, in any field that requires development, you ARE paying for it. The exception becomes when a particular application of an idea has been on the market for a long time and is nearly universally utilized, at which time it becomes a commidity. A commidity item tends only to pay attention to the capital investment + labor vs the utility value of the item, but because the utility value of universally known and considered common place, it too is valued little. Hence commodity items tends to be extremely low profit margin items for their producers. Thier saving grace is they have HUGE markets, so big corporations can still turn acceptible profits.

    Ryan S. Johnson
    Guild of Blades Publishing Group
    http://www.guildofblades.com
    http://www.1483online.com
    http://www.thermopylae-online.com
    •  
      CommentAuthorGMSkarka
    • CommentTimeMar 21st 2007
     # 60
    I would participate in this thread, but some of the positions stated are so ass-screamingly ignorant about how the world actually works, I'd just end up losing my temper and making it a raging flamewar.

    Enjoy, folks.
    • CommentAuthorD-503
    • CommentTimeMar 21st 2007
     # 61
    Posted By: VaxalonI think the hacker ethic of free ideas is DEFINITELY supported here... many of us share our ideas for the express purpose that they will be taken, improved, and put back into the community for the benefit of all. If that's not hacker ethic I don't know what is.


    Quite, the point is though it's a voluntary ethic.

    Sharing your cool stuff for free is part of the hacker ethic, having your cool stuff ripped off against your will is not quite so much so.

    I think the hacker ethic thing is a side issue, it's actually a simple equation. Person A creates a thing of value to me, Person A sets a price for that thing, I may now decide that value merits that price for me or I can not buy it or I can take it without consent and gain that value without paying the creator for their work. Those are my options, there isn't much else out there (discounting here the secondary market).

    I've avoided the word steal there, to avoid that debate, but ultimately we're talking about taking a creator's work without paying them the price they are asking for it, even if for the sake of argument we say that isn't stealing it still isn't particularly admirable and is unlikely ever to be popular in any forum where the creatives themselves hang out.

    Is there more to this debate than whether or not it is morally justifiable to take other people's work without paying them for it? Are we just debating whether rpgs are overpriced? I'm not sure I'm following what the fundamental point is here.
    • CommentAuthorkomradebob
    • CommentTimeMar 21st 2007 edited
     # 62
    Posted By: Balbinus Are we just debating whether rpgs are overpriced? I'm not sure I'm following what the fundamental point is here.


    I actually thought that was the core point to be honest, and that the whole side issue of snaking stuff without paying was a side issue.

    My understanding of Andrew's point was that somehow the physical quality of the game was equally important to the consumer end in determining a viable selling price, and that games generally ( both indie and mainstream) were failing on that point.

    Which is why I started asking questions about somewhat similar-ish items and how he felt about the pricing of those compared to rpgs.

    If that's what he's getting at, I'm not entirely unsympathetic and I think it's worthy of at least some sort of general discussion.
    •  
      CommentAuthorKuma
    • CommentTimeMar 21st 2007
     # 63
    An interesting thread. I'm not going to read the entire thing, but here's my reaction to Andrew's initial post:

    There's a fundamental flaw in your argument. To make sure that I get it straight, I'm going to go back over a few points.

    Games come in two forms: physical and electronic. When you buy a physical copy of the book, you're paying for the atoms that comprise the book. When you're buying an electronic copy, since there are no atoms, there's no monetary value.

    When you buy a game, I agree - you're buying the rules. The rules, the concepts that comprise the game, are essentially valueless. However, you're not paying for the rules themselves - you're paying to be taught the concept. It's not the idea - it's the transmission of the idea from the creator to you that you're really paying for. The creator of the work arranged some novel collection of concepts, rules and 'color', and you're paying to have that unique collection transmitted to you.

    This transmission can occur in one of three ways (currently, anyways): physical, electronic or personal (being taught directly). None are inherently less valuable - simply different forms.

    While I think you can argue that charging the same amount for a PDF (which doesn't have printing costs associated with it) as a physical book is problematic is one thing. But you're arguing something else entirely, based on a false assumption about what it is you're actually paying for.
  64.  # 64
    Jake: Okay, cool. I think we’ve reached the point of understanding that we each have a different view on this. Just to be sure, though, I’ll answer your first question, because it seems to show our different opinions. Yes, I really do disagree, and that seems to be the foundation of our different viewpoints. I think the idea has no monetary value (and please note that I’m speaking solely of direct monetary worth, not any other kind of “value” or significance), but the book does. If I understand you correctly, you feel that the idea has monetary value, and the book is just the carrier for that idea, and thus has no (or at least, less) monetary value. Is that about right?

    “Again, I disagree. I think you are mistaking the frame for the painting. Or more accurately, admiring the finished product without being able to acknowledge all the work that went into it. I don't know how it is for you, but for m generating the ideas that resulted in the finished versions of my game were a lot of work.”

    No, I certainly recognize the hard work that goes into developing, applying, and testing games. I don’t consider any of that to be part of the idea, though. It’s part of the work that goes into creating the product.

    ” My ideas are developed and refined through a process of hard work before they ever are translated to a physical artifact. The idea is the work.”

    See, this is bit confusing for me. Because I totally agree with the first sentence. In fact, that work is what I’m paying for – the application of the idea. But then you say that the idea is the work, and I just don’t understand that. The idea was refined and turned into a product through hard work, certainly. Have I misunderstood you here?

    Well, I’m starting to feel the same as you; that I’m just repeating myself here. But hopefully in restating my thoughts in different ways, I might hit upon an explanation that’s more easily understood, even for those who disagree, so at least can we make sure we understand each other.

    ” When I say "ideas" I'm refering to the entire mental creative process that for me is 90% of the work.”

    Oh. Well, yeah, then this is clearly part of it, because I am most definitely not referring to all that as part of the “idea.”

    ” It seems like Andrew is trying to argue that it's only the last few steps of the development, the physical steps once the ideas are already in place, that are worthwhile. But I may be wrong. Andrew, feel free to correct me.”

    That’s not at all what I’m saying, Jake. Hopefully, my comments above have clarified that.

    Joe: That’s pretty darn close, at the very least. Like I’ve said before in this thread, ideas totally have all sorts of non-monetary worth. Worthwhile isn’t the same as worth money. And if you want to call me from Canada to hear out your ideas, I’ll absolutely listen to them…unless you call collect, of course.

    Fred: Yeah, that’s what I’m saying, for the most part, though I’d say that the ideas have no value instead of “not much.”

    Max: I’m not talking about the practicalities of economics here. That keeps getting overlooked, but it’s very important. I know how pricing does work. I’m addressing how it should. It’s an abstract concept, not a concrete one.

    Chris: “The notion that ideas are or should be free is idealistic. Personally I think it is incorrect. We share ideas to communicate - getting respect like was mentioned above. While I would hate to reduce everything to market terms - time and energy are market terms.”

    Wait…are you arguing that ideas should or shouldn’t be free of monetary cost here?

    Robert: I can’t really say. I don’t buy boardgames or hobby instruction manuals, so I have no idea about how they are priced.

    Ryan: So how does the law define copying? Because if you memorize something, you have a copy in your head, accessible to you any time you want to use it. What makes this different from writing it down in your notebook?

    On the issue of pricing, I’ll point back to my earlier response to Rob, where I explain that through the discussion here, I’ve come to realize that it’s not so much a matter of overpricing as pricing for the wrong reasons. Does that make sense?
    • CommentAuthorMcdaldno
    • CommentTimeMar 22nd 2007
     # 65
    Joe: That’s pretty darn close, at the very least. Like I’ve said before in this thread, ideas totally have all sorts of non-monetary worth. Worthwhile isn’t the same as worth money. And if you want to call me from Canada to hear out your ideas, I’ll absolutely listen to them…unless you call collect, of course.

    Cool.

    So, here's the thing: When I've worked long and hard on an idea and its expression, and then hired other people to do editing, art, layout and printing... my hard work, coordinating hand, initial idea, and vision... they should all be rewarded somehow, right? Because if you're paying for the vessel which an idea comes in (the book), then you're essentially paying for services that 'those other people did'.

    Does that make sense? It's clear in my mind, but might need elaboration for the rest of the world.

    So, you're down for paying money as a way of saying "product, you are awesome!"
    Andrew, in what ways are you interested in giving an idea and its expression "idea, you are awesome!" kind of worth?

    How does one recognize an idea/articulation/framework/game world without spending money on it?

    Or, are you basically saying, "Actually, Joe, I'm not down with giving it money worth or an alternative worth"?
    • CommentAuthorD-503
    • CommentTimeMar 22nd 2007 edited
     # 66
    Posted By: Andrew MorrisMax: I’m not talking about the practicalities of economics here. That keeps getting overlooked, but it’s very important. I know how pricing does work. I’m addressing how it should. It’s an abstract concept, not a concrete one.


    Why? We live in the world of actuality, not in the world of forms. What does it matter how it should work if that is unrelated to how it can work? I'm not even sure what should means in this context, should is a value judgement after all.

    I mean, if all this is is that stuff we want should be affordable in a perfect world, well sure, but so what? Is this purely an intellectual exercise then for its own sake?

    Are you actually saying that you have no comment on how people should actually price things, but merely a comment on how they should price them were real world factors not an issue?

    Price isn't capable of being an abstract concept, that fundamentally misses the point of how economics works, it is necessarily a concrete thing of the world.

    Edit: Actually, an answer to this came to me.

    Premise 1, if the world were as it should be indie games would be free or at minimal cost. I don't think this is correct, but it's at the core of the argument.

    Premise 2, indie games in fact are more expensive than free or minimal cost.

    If we accept those two premises for the sake of argument, taking an indie game without payment or consent becomes a moral act, an act which helps to bring the world as it is closer to the world as it should be. Essentially, it becomes a moral justification for taking IP without payment or consent. I think in essence, that's what the argument here boils down to, and it's why it can be misleading to talk of how things should be without reference to how things are, because then acts which makes things as they should be are acts which help make the actual more like the ideal.

    Put another way, it's sophistry, an argument which justifies taking other people's work without paying for it as in some postulated ideal world they would not ask for payment.
  67.  # 67
    <blockquote><<strong>Chris</strong>:<em>“The notion that ideas are or should be free is idealistic. Personally I think it is incorrect. We share ideas to communicate - getting respect like was mentioned above. While I would hate to reduce everything to market terms - time and energy are market terms.”</em>

    Wait…are you arguing that ideas should or shouldn’t be free of monetary cost here?
    </blockquote>

    While I can go along with the hacker ethos to a certain extent - It is good for people to share their ideas in a community because it promotes greater game development for all. In the end, I think we do own the words we use to express our ideas. It is simple property law I know but it is compelling. Once a person puts their words up for sale it is in a different realm than what they write on an open forum.

    For instance. I write a lot about Matrix Games. I am certainly okay with people using the ideas to run games or make their own version of the game BUT if they take one of my published games and sell it under their name that is clearly not okay. If they plagarize my rules and wrote their own game without giving me a royalty that is not okay. It switches to the different level when money becomes involved. That was what I was getting at with the idea of "value added". The publisher takes raw ideas (which are cheap - less than a penny an idea) and adds value to them in they way they are presented.

    The historical miniatures game community routinely "borrows" ideas from game to game - but not exact wording. Miniatures gaming is more a hobby than a market since it doesn't make much money for many people. I love the collegiality of that community - the same things exists amoungst Story Gamers. Miniatures guys are different in that at their core - they own their toy soldiers. Story games are based on ideas more than tangible objects so the lines are more unclear. I value sharing my ideas to gain social contact but in the end I still think my ideas have value (even if it's just a penny).

    Chris Engle
    • CommentAuthorClinton
    • CommentTimeMar 22nd 2007 edited
     # 68

    This is a super-long thread that is slightly nutso. I skimmed it, so I may have missed some great arguments. Anyway, I thought I'd respond, since I roll like this.

    I love role-playing games. They are my hobby. I like writing them, and that's a hobby, too. I give them away, and make sure others can use them through a license that I think gives everyone a fair shake (and annoys Ben Lehman. INSERT FLAME WAR HERE.)

    I have a business where I take games I wrote and make them into products. I charge for those, because it required me to do work, which I define as: an act of mental, physical, or spiritual violence to my person accepted by me in exchange for profit.

    Why do I roll like this? Two reasons: one, if I wrote role-playing games for money, I would quit writing role-playing games for fun, and start thinking about what I can make from them. I realize my distinction on writing them and making products from them is hair-thin, but whatevs. It works for the elaborate mental framework I live in. Two, I have this theory. Information is power. Power is wealth. I am super-wealthy by the standards of about 80% of the world, and pretty middle-class for my own super-insane-wealthy nation. Let's assume about 85% of the people in the world are not as wealthy. Role-playing games are information. They aren't information that gives a lot of power or wealth, but they give at least the minimum. If I give them away, I transfer wealth from me to others. This is an act of kindness.

    Before it gets too hot in here, recognize! I respect the concept that ideas have wealth. I respect personal freedoms and decisions. I respect all of you!

    Big ups, Clinton R. Nixon

    •  
      CommentAuthorBen Lehman
    • CommentTimeMar 22nd 2007
     # 69
    Clinton -- Consider the flame war inserted.

    yrs--
    --Ben
    • CommentAuthorGaerik
    • CommentTimeMar 22nd 2007
     # 70
    I'll throw my hat in the ring.

    I don't really understand the whole "moral" right and wrong issue that seems to be going. The right price to charge for a product, service, idea, or whatnot is whatever the seller wants to charge. Then the market takes over and decides whether it will bear that price. Right and wrong in a moral sense doesn't even enter into in my opinion. If someone wants to charge $300 for a PDF and people will pay it, hu-ah for them. If they want to give away all their work for free, hu-ah for them.

    If I'm asked what price "should" someone charge for anything, my answer is whatever price maximizes your proffits. I admit that my answer is a pragmatist's answer but in these situations I tend to sit firmly in that camp.

    I still like you, Andrew! Even if you're a hippie.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAndy
    • CommentTimeMar 22nd 2007
     # 71
    I think we should solve this issue once and for all with a giant wrestle-down at Camp Nerdly.

    I'll bring the oil.

    -Andy
    • CommentAuthorGaerik
    • CommentTimeMar 22nd 2007
     # 72
    Um... please tell me y'all are going to be clothed. There are some things I just don't need to know about you, Andy.
    • CommentAuthorkomradebob
    • CommentTimeMar 22nd 2007
     # 73
    Robert: I can’t really say. I don’t buy boardgames or hobby instruction manuals, so I have no idea about how they are priced.


    Are you familiar with Cheapass Games then? You don't need to know a whole lot, right?

    The original one of Kill Doctor Lucky! was a little black and white boardgame in a printed envelope and sold for about $5 total. Not a whole lot was included-players were expected to be able to come up with tokens to move or dice by themself.

    Recently, the same game has been re-released as a Deluxe edition, more in the form ofa traditional boardgame. Now it comes with colored box, colored board and all components.

    The Deluxe Version sells for around $25.

    Is that sort of the comparison you're making about rpgs? Basically, that rpg sellers are selling stuff that would be fairly priced at that low level/cruder copy as if it were the deluxe version with all the physical gewgaws?
  74.  # 74
    <blockquote>
    Is that sort of the comparison you're making about rpgs? Basically, that rpg sellers are selling stuff that would be fairly priced at that low level/cruder copy as if it were the deluxe version with all the physical gewgaws?
    </blockquote>

    Value added - just what I was saying.

    Chris Engle
  75.  # 75
    Why is this limited to ideas? How about experience? Any sort of knowledge?

    By Andrew's assertion, if I come round to his house or business and do not deliver a product, then my time should be free? My primary business is Information Technology support and some local companies pay me to come round and talk to their in-house IT or just fix the problem. Very seldom do we sell a physical product, we just sell my time. I give about 20 hours a week to my company and they pay me a salary for being able to sell those hours to clients.

    The same goes for my writing. I don't sell many PDFs (only ever produced two PDF games: Creed and Testament and they were more like donationware) but I've sold a few hundred books (23rd Letter, Zombi, SpaceNinjaCyberCrisis) and I've always treated it like a hobby. Because that's exactly what it is to me. I'm not worried about making money because I don't value my time the way my business values my time. I write to relax.

    From another point of view - surely the proliferation of free games devalues the work of the professional game writer?
    • CommentAuthorGaerik
    • CommentTimeMar 22nd 2007
     # 76
    Matt - Andrew (the other one, not me) has said that he thinks you should charge for time. My understanding is that he doesn't think he should have to pay you for your ideas.
  77.  # 77
    Hi Andrew,

    >>Ryan: So how does the law define copying? Because if you memorize something, you have a copy in your head, accessible to you any time you want to use it. What makes this different from writing it down in your notebook?<<

    Well, for one, most people can absorb an idea fairly easy, but can not absorb the text as written. Since the idea is free and only the expression of the text is protected, the law just assumes you absorbed the idea and not the exact expression. This, of course, is merely an assumption and nothing can be proven one way or the other. Nor could the law really prove IF you actually had memorized what you ready, to what degree, etc, etc. So for practical reasons, thats just a non starter. But copying it down verbatum, that is obviously provable and it actually shows an intent to copy the expression rather than just taking notes so that you can understand the idea.

    >>On the issue of pricing, I’ll point back to my earlier response to Rob, where I explain that through the discussion here, I’ve come to realize that it’s not so much a matter of overpricing as pricing for the wrong reasons. Does that make sense? <<

    It makes sense, but really, you can't assume what were the most important factors that led to the pricing. It is entirely possible the creator is not valuing their "ideas" at all and instead has priced their product based on the value of the time and capital investment they have put up front. Some people will value their ideas above money. Some people will value their money above the ideas. How you can expect to figure which was the primary consideration when pricing the product? And whatever your thoughts might be with regards to the values (or lack thereof) assigned to ideas, it would be truly hard to tell a person they are wrong for placing a particular value on their money and time. You may not opt to see that person's time or money being of a value equal to what they percieve, but in the end, only they can decide what it is worth to them.

    In the end, as a game publisher, I am selling two things. I am selling enjoyment and I am financing the delivery system (time+money) required to bring that enjoyment to the persons who find the products I make interesting. I am selling a product (enjoyment), be it a printed book or board game, or a PDF downloadable product or an online computer game, and I am selling the service of funding the delivery process that makes the consumer getting that enjoyment possible. To that end, as a business person, I expect to be fairly compensated for both the product and the service, as both have value. The "idea" which is at the heart of the enjoyment is a part of the value of the enjoyment, though often it is the expression of the idea that delivers the most bang for the buck. Both are key elements to the ultimate value of the enjoyment that may be had. And it is pretty much impossible to assign or attribute a specific cost to either, excepting that in the free market, it is "whatever the market will bear". And in truth, I can concieve of no other possible way to do it fairly, otherwise some official or law maker really would be in the possition of actually trying to determine the value of ideas and expressions of ideas. And thats a scary prospect.

    Ryan S. Johnson
    Guild of Blades Publishing Group
    http://www.guildofblades.com
    http://www.1483online.com
    http://www.thermopylae-online.com
    •  
      CommentAuthorAndy
    • CommentTimeMar 22nd 2007
     # 78
    My understanding is that he doesn't think he should have to pay you for your ideas.


    Originally, but remember what he was getting at so we don't start the ferris pileon wheel all over again.

    He meant in the above,

    "By that I mean, I will not pay to purchase your PDF."

    Which is not the same as (although a lot of people are jumping to the conclusion)

    "By that I mean, I will take your PDF without paying for it."
    • CommentAuthorGaerik
    • CommentTimeMar 22nd 2007
     # 79
    Posted By: Andy
    My understanding is that he doesn't think he should have to pay you for your ideas.


    Originally, but remember what he was getting at so we don't start the ferris pileon wheel all over again.

    He meant in the above,

    "By that I mean, I will not pay to purchase your PDF."

    Which is not the same as (although a lot of people are jumping to the conclusion)

    "By that I mean, I will take your PDF without paying for it."


    Andy,

    Here's a quote from Andrew a few posts above mine. It's what I was talking about. I thought we had thrown out the whole PDF rigamarole.

    Posted by: Andrew MorrisI think the idea has no monetary value (and please note that I’m speaking solely of direct monetary worth, not any other kind of “value” or significance), but the book does. If I understand you correctly, you feel that the idea has monetary value, and the book is just the carrier for that idea, and thus has no (or at least, less) monetary value.
  80.  # 80
    OK, I don't agree with it but...

1 to 80 of 85

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. >