Back to the OP, I rarely see reason to invest $60 in an RPG book. Nowadays, with the exception of the core books of RPGs that are going to see A LOT of play with my group, I rarely buy physical RPG books anymore. The take place on a bookshelf and are unweildy to carry around. I prefer to buy PDFs in most cases to ready on my tablet and then print out the relevant parts for the game itself.

The main exception is D&D 5E - I spent about $120 on the three core books plus the quick start adventure/box (Lost Mine of Phandelver). But that's a game I can always find a good number of players for even in Israel with its tiny RPG community, AND it is my group's favourite ruelset. I can use the books for a decade of gaming, for the very least, to run and play a great number of sessions. A similar exception is Traveller, 2nd Edition, but again - a ruleset I know well, from a publisher I know well, and I know the rules well from the playtest I have participated in; and again, very well-known game with players to be found.

Regarding OSR games, my favourites are:

1) Stars Without Number. The main rule PDF is free and of very good production quality (B&W; some stock art).
2) ACKS. The core book PDF is $10, again very good production quality (B&W).
3) Swords and Wizardry. The core PDF is free (B&W).
4) White Star. PDF is $10, softcover is $20. Excellent game with very good production quality (B&W).

To get more than $10-$20 from me for a gaming product, you will have to work EXTREMELY HARD to provide me with value, and COMPETE with these favourites. Most indie games won't get my money at such sums, if at all.

Oh, and I don't need color art. I don't need too much B&W art, just a decent number of pieces which are thematically appropriate. I don't need hardcovers with gloss paper. Full-color books with "high production quality" are quite heavy for my tablet. I buy gaming products, not artbooks.

Quote from: golan2072;906777Oh, and I don't need color art. I don't need too much B&W art, just a decent number of pieces which are thematically appropriate. I don't need hardcovers with gloss paper. Full-color books with "high production quality" are quite heavy for my tablet. I buy gaming products, not artbooks.

I absolutely understand this view.  But you also have to realize that you are very clearly in the minority in the hobby, whether or not one would say that's a bad thing.  Fact is, people like flashy pretty books.  I think Dark Albion has immense value for its writing, but I'm also absolutely sure it wouldn't have been nearly the hit it turned out to be had it not been for the amazing production values the publisher put into it.

Quote from: RPGPundit;907980I absolutely understand this view.  But you also have to realize that you are very clearly in the minority in the hobby, whether or not one would say that's a bad thing.  Fact is, people like flashy pretty books.  I think Dark Albion has immense value for its writing, but I'm also absolutely sure it wouldn't have been nearly the hit it turned out to be had it not been for the amazing production values the publisher put into it.

I consider ACKS (I'll buy Dark Albion soon!) a good example of a product I buy - "high production quality" but B&W (other than the covers) on regular paper, saving quite a lot of money. The PDF costs $9.99.

I speak as somone who has published several short PDF products and who is working on a big PDF product - art is EXPENSIVE. Fill your book with full-color art, and it will be very costly, and unless you can sell it en-masse, you will have to charge a steep price. The alternative is to do crowdfunding so that you will have an art budget at hand before selling, but this also has its difficulties.

Quote from: golan2072;907988I consider ACKS (I'll buy Dark Albion soon!) a good example of a product I buy - "high production quality" but B&W (other than the covers) on regular paper, saving quite a lot of money. The PDF costs $9.99.

I speak as somone who has published several short PDF products and who is working on a big PDF product - art is EXPENSIVE. Fill your book with full-color art, and it will be very costly, and unless you can sell it en-masse, you will have to charge a steep price. The alternative is to do crowdfunding so that you will have an art budget at hand before selling, but this also has its difficulties.

All this is true, of course. Luckily you can still get away with black and white interior art in this hobby.  That's not really what usually defines whether or not a book is considered 'artistically impressive' (though being full-color more of than not tends to help with that impression).  More important is the quality and quantity of the interior art, and the layout.

Quote from: RPGPundit;907980I absolutely understand this view.  But you also have to realize that you are very clearly in the minority in the hobby, whether or not one would say that's a bad thing.  Fact is, people like flashy pretty books.  I think Dark Albion has immense value for its writing, but I'm also absolutely sure it wouldn't have been nearly the hit it turned out to be had it not been for the amazing production values the publisher put into it.

Unless Dark Albion allowed the buyer to open it up and flip through it to see all that costly glitzy art. Its not the factor people keep claiming it is. Interior art has never been the sale demand people keep claiming it is. Probably 75% or more of RPG purchases are either sight unseen or just the cover.

Quote from: Omega;908892Unless Dark Albion allowed the buyer to open it up and flip through it to see all that costly glitzy art. Its not the factor people keep claiming it is. Interior art has never been the sale demand people keep claiming it is. Probably 75% or more of RPG purchases are either sight unseen or just the cover.

Flashy covers aren't cheap...

Unless you have an in-house artist, like Paizo and Wayne Reynolds (which I don't know if he still is their personal artist, but he's done most of their art to date...)

Quote from: Christopher Brady;909232Flashy covers aren't cheap...

Covers period are not cheap. Even in board gaming one warning thats given is that a chunk of your expenses is going to go into the box. Namely the box art unless your game is art heavy in components. (or minis. Oh those damn minis)

But then theres minimalists like Werewolf, Vampire and even Traveller.

Art is almost a complete non factor for me in buying RPGs. I do not have a local game shop so I buy everything online. I don't get to see the pretty pictures until I have already bought the book.

To be honest I buy RPGs to play. Some of the full color, lots of art books get so hung up on being pretty that they lose readability and thus playability.

A good cover can catch my eye when browing online, but it needs clear graphic design. The classic Traveller look was brilliant. Minimalist and distinctive. You knew right away you were looking at a Traveller product. Of course if everyone started doing that it would no longer stand out.

Well, having an interesting cover is pretty essential. That's why we made TWO for Dark Albion.

...and now this poor doll is farting inside a thread on the S&W FB page (in a thread wherein 'the market' is responding fairly negatively to the newly proposed cover art for S&W Complete).
I mention that the consumers are where money comes from for those who sell a product and run Kickstarters and the whole of his reasoned response is to post a Simpsons Nelson 'ha ha' meme.

What a razor sharp mind.

Quote from: MachFront;910246...and now this poor doll is farting inside a thread on the S&W FB page (in a thread wherein 'the market' is responding fairly negatively to the newly proposed cover art for S&W Complete).
I mention that the consumers are where money comes from for those who sell a product and run Kickstarters and the whole of his reasoned response is to post a Simpsons Nelson 'ha ha' meme.

What a razor sharp mind.

I don't really understand this controversy from either side. Maybe I am just blind. But the old cover looks like an 80s RPG cover to me and the new one looks like something off a 90s Obituary cover or HP Lovecraft book. I can totally see how people might like one over the other but I am completely missing how this at all connects to the SJW thing.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;910257...but I am completely missing how this at all connects to the SJW thing.

Meh. The SJW was in another thread on Google+ who tried to stop folks from saying anything negative about the piece (the S&W art/design team is two ladies) because "patriarchy". That little stir was nothing at all, really.

Helton, in the FB thread, was simply being silly imaging somehow that money doesn't come from the consumers of a given product/kickstarter. I'll have to assume he thinks the money springs forth from some mystical otherwhen. It's no big deal either, I simply realized who he was a few moments later and recalled his 'article' and this thread.

No dog in this fight, but if I were to buy this book, I'd want the one with the Otus cover.  The updated one just doesn't look like anything to me.

Quote from: MachFront;910291Meh. The SJW was in another thread on Google+ who tried to stop folks from saying anything negative about the piece (the S&W art/design team is two ladies) because "patriarchy". That little stir was nothing at all, really.

Helton, in the FB thread, was simply being silly imaging somehow that money doesn't come from the consumers of a given product/kickstarter. I'll have to assume he thinks the money springs forth from some mystical otherwhen. It's no big deal either, I simply realized who he was a few moments later and recalled his 'article' and this thread.

I just don't get it. So it isn't even about the content of the image itself, it is about all the background stuff? Sometimes I feel like you have to wade through pages of google+ threads these days just to understand a given controversy. Personally I like the image (like I said, reminds me of an obituary cover or something Lovecraftian). I understand why some people like the old art and why it is a good fit for the material but I am not a huge fan of that style myself. Still I don't think is godawful or anything (and I like the colors). Treating liking an image or not liking it as an act of righteousness or evil makes zero sense. My feed these days is full of people who hate this movie or love that show and announce like they are taking a stand or just revealed their stance on Israel. I simply don't get it. If people don't like the cover I am interested to here why. If they do I am interested. But not if it is ultimately just because it is a political stand.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;910321I just don't get it. So it isn't even about the content of the image itself, it is about all the background stuff? Sometimes I feel like you have to wade through pages of google+ threads these days just to understand a given controversy. Personally I like the image (like I said, reminds me of an obituary cover or something Lovecraftian). I understand why some people like the old art and why it is a good fit for the material but I am not a huge fan of that style myself. Still I don't think is godawful or anything (and I like the colors). Treating liking an image or not liking it as an act of righteousness or evil makes zero sense. My feed these days is full of people who hate this movie or love that show and announce like they are taking a stand or just revealed their stance on Israel. I simply don't get it. If people don't like the cover I am interested to here why. If they do I am interested. But not if it is ultimately just because it is a political stand.

There were essentially two things going on at once that became oddly and unfortunately intertwined. Many folks were expressing a mixture of distaste and confusion over the new cover (most explaining why: it doesn't communicate the game, etc.).
Then folks (like Helton) coming in and conflating people disliking it with: disrespect due to patriarchal attitudes, or as pointless belly-aching, or not being as enlightened in some way...or...something.