What a complete crock of shit this Enworld post by professional ignoramus Christopher Helton is. Someone made the same argument before, years ago, and I refuted it already in a previous blog post.  Entitled game designers do not get to set Price Controls, Helton, just so that they can get the rock-star lifestyle they think their imagined genius entitles them to.

Why is it that semi-competent assholes in the gaming industry always end up hiding in one of two demands: either that everyone start paying more for their products, or that we somehow reduce the number of people writing competing products?

Because it's happened in every single form of media to date in some fashion.  I can point several non-Gaming related industries in which virtual monopolies exist, where we're forced to accept what we're getting because only one source exists for it.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;896932Because it's happened in every single form of media to date in some fashion.  I can point several non-Gaming related industries in which virtual monopolies exist, where we're forced to accept what we're getting because only one source exists for it.

may i ask what your examples are you've peeked my interest

First the "RPG Content Glut" now "RPGs Should Cost More". RPGs will cost what the market will bear. If not enough gamers will *pay* $60+ for your shiny, full color, hardcover rulebook (or more likely B&W HC rulebook) then either find a way to produce it more cheaply or find a different way to make money because the demand for your product simply isn't there.  Simple economic truth.

And this ignores the fact that gamers are willing to pay those prices for *some* RPG books Granted most of those are from the top tier publishers, and most often for licensed properties as well.

There is also the fact that e-books are the future of RPG publishing. I know I have bought many games soley because I could get them as an electronic version. I do not have the physical space it would require to store my RPG library if it were all hard copy. It is a bonus that electronic versions are usually cheaper as well.

Make something I want to buy and I'll buy it, it's not $60 I balk at.

Quote from: kosmos1214;896933may i ask what your examples are you've peeked my interest

Windows Desktop/Laptop Operating system, hence Microsoft.  Yes, there are Macs and Linux, but they don't have half the mental and physical market share.  To a lot of people, especially those making computer based products, their number one thought is how to make it work with whatever version of the Windows OS that is out now.  It's so bad that at one point, the U.S. Government tried to sue Microsoft to stop bundling their Windows Internet Browser, to all for some competition.  We all see how well that worked.

Ma Bell.  For all the Cell Phone providers out there, what a lot of people don't know is that Bell Telecom and AT&T are the only ones in the mainland U.S. that can actually provide wireless service.  Up here in my area of Canada, it's Bell and a local Cable Company called Rogers.  But just about everywhere you look, Bell is there.  And all those little Cellphone services you see on TV?  Each and everyone is RENTING their signal from either Bell, or AT&T.  Which is why some of them have worse service than Bell (which is kinda impressive, cuz Bell is so big, they don't care.)

In the World of Vidya Games:  If you want to play a fast paced, corridor shooter, there's only one company you can buy the Call of Duty franchise from, Activision.  It doesn't matter how bad the company treats it's employees, if you want your Call of Duty fix, they gotcha by the balls.  And all they do is front the money to make it.  Other than some level of executive mandate (we see this all the time in Warner Bros. DC films, which in my opinion has not had one good/decent Superhero movie since 1989.) they actually do nothing for the game.  They are a choke point, no one else can publish Call of Duty.

Those are just a few of the virtual monopolies in the world right now, that are getting away with crushing any chance of competition and choice.

The point is, that those games aren´t worth the money the designers think they do. Worth is in the eye of the customer:

I (would, looking at the current proposals) pay for content that both:
a) is about things I am interested in (and here rather as tools and multi use elements than theme)
b) saving me work at the edges, so that I can focus on the elements that interest me most.

My impression of most offers seem to be that designers do:
a) do what interests them most
b) leave the boring fiddly details to the customer to fill out.

And then it doesn´t increase "worth" a bit that he took hours to do it and used costly materials and art. Double points if similar or better content is available for free.

I can understand and sympathize with the idea that when someone is employing someone that he should pay at least life bearing wages, but then we would probably don´t see much of an industrie. (which I think wouldn´t change that much to RPG gaming overall)
Someone self employed on the other hand is also self respsonsible that the money is OK or has to recognize, that he needs a different job.

If you want to get paid for media content nobody is interested in, you have to work for government propaganda, but even then someone else will probably decide what you write unless you are in the "filler program".

My suggestion:
Anyone that thinks that the problem is that there is too much competition around, should probably do something against it - and stop being part of "the content glut".

Quote from: RPGPundit;896929What a complete crock of shit this Enworld post by professional ignoramus Christopher Helton is. Someone made the same argument before, years ago, and I refuted it already in a previous blog post.  Entitled game designers do not get to set Price Controls, Helton, just so that they can get the rock-star lifestyle they think their imagined genius entitles them to.

Why is it that semi-competent assholes in the gaming industry always end up hiding in one of two demands: either that everyone start paying more for their products, or that we somehow reduce the number of people writing competing products?

Hyperbole aside, the main issues is that the economics of publishing have drastically changed. The barrier to get something in print and into a distribution system has drastically lowered. Also how it organized has radically changed. It more of a collaborative effort with gamers acting as patrons of their favorite authors and artists. A situation where freelancers and paid staff are becoming rare in favor of ad-hoc partnerships. To people used to the traditional methods of publishing and distribution it seems like armageddon.

Despite the changes, people manage to make art-heavy products, pay their artist and make a profit. It just now surrounded by a sea of products of every level of quality down to simple black and white text. While before these products would not be seen beyond a circle of friend in one's hometown now the whole planet is a potential audience.

Finally we live in a time where the board game is king. Wargame had their time, then roleplaying games, and now board games and card games rule the roost. The good news is that we have a board game renaissance at all. This means there is still hope for face to face gaming that the internet is just going to be one, albeit very popular, option among many for entertainment. And unlike the old model the current lack of widespread popularity for tabletop roleplaying doesn't spell it death. The internet brought hex and counter wargame from a near death in the 90s, and now it will serve to keep tabletop roleplaying a living breathing hobby.

The answer in the new age is that you have to cultivate your audience. You can no longer just sit around and let other do it for you.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;896932Because it's happened in every single form of media to date in some fashion.  I can point several non-Gaming related industries in which virtual monopolies exist, where we're forced to accept what we're getting because only one source exists for it.

I don't think that the issue with tabletop roleplaying in 2016.

can't this guy cover costs via Kickstarter?

Its like artists who want to be paid by the hour. Rather than per commission based on, oh, their talent and speed, or lack thereof.

I was reading that article and thread earlier today and was blown away by the sheer idiocy of some of the posters. No game designer, even one of the truly awesome ones, is entitled to my money. If they put out something great at a price I can afford, I'm happy to pay it. But it's like some of these guys think every gamer out there should be dropping $10,000 or more a year on gaming materials.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;896937Windows Desktop/Laptop Operating system, hence Microsoft.  Yes, there are Macs and Linux, but they don't have half the mental and physical market share.

Except that is a poor analogy in 2016. The computer landscape has shifted. iOS and Android are eating Windows lunch and Microsoft is unable to compete head to head. Except that is not so simple either because iOS and Android devices are still piss poor at productivity applications. But that not simple either because web developers are doing amazing thing with HTML5 and server backends.

What has happened is that the landscape shifted into a new mode.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;896937To a lot of people, especially those making computer based products, their number one thought is how to make it work with whatever version of the Windows OS that is out now.

Windows was dominant because developers in the 90s like myself found it to be the superior solution for our application. Apple and Unix/Linux sucked major ass when you try to develop and deploy an application. Nothing really changed in the 2000s, but now in 2016 writing web apps has become a serious alternative for certain applications. But when it comes to regular computer application, windows is still the system to develop for.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;896937It's so bad that at one point, the U.S. Government tried to sue Microsoft to stop bundling their Windows Internet Browser, to all for some competition.  We all see how well that worked.

It failed because the government didn't have the case they thought they did. But they also succeeded because it paused Microsoft by just enough to allow Google and the open source community to catch up. Now IE is just one of several choices for browsing the web. And with the rise of iOS, Safari has carved a niche.

Ma Bell.  For all the Cell Phone providers out there, what a lot of people don't know is that Bell Telecom and AT&T are the only ones in the mainland U.S. that can actually provide wireless service.  

I don't know where you get your information in the US there are at least twodozen wireless operator who operate their own equipment and networks. Although there are five that have true nationwide reach, the rest are regional companies. Now there is a greater number of virtual wireless operators that do indeed lease service from the major companies.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;896937In the World of Vidya Games:  If you want to play a fast paced, corridor shooter, there's only one company you can buy the Call of Duty franchise from, Activision.  It doesn't matter how bad the company treats it's employees, if you want your Call of Duty fix, they gotcha by the balls.  And all they do is front the money to make it.  Other than some level of executive mandate (we see this all the time in Warner Bros. DC films, which in my opinion has not had one good/decent Superhero movie since 1989.) they actually do nothing for the game.  They are a choke point, no one else can publish Call of Duty.

Damn, I must be out of mind because I swear I have Battlefield 4 installed on my computer. I must seeing an illusion when I look at Steam and I see game like Rust, ARK, Doom, etc.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;896937Those are just a few of the virtual monopolies in the world right now, that are getting away with crushing any chance of competition and choice.

Maybe it way different in Canada. Because it doesn't sound at all like what world of entertainment is like at the present in the United States.

Some of them even want you to pay them before they've written anything.

Quote from: estar;896951Maybe it way different in Canada. Because it doesn't sound at all like what world of entertainment is like at the present in the United States.

Much of Brady's post is ridiculously overblown, but yes, things are different in Canada. Entertainment, media and telecommunications are heavily regulated and there are government-enforced monopolies.

As far as the OP goes, yeah....dude seems impervious to the most likely explanation, which is that game designers are producing crap that isn't significantly better than what people can turn out on their own.