Wow, so a group of conservatives have made a judgement that favours mom-and-pop businesses and smaller companies, and makes life a little harder for huge megacorporations doing volume discounting (including Walmart, that bastion of bleeding-heart-degenerate-liberalism).  Clearly, this is a shocking right-wing conspiracy.  :rolleyes:

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditWow, so a group of conservatives have made a judgement that favours mom-and-pop businesses and smaller companies, and makes life a little harder for huge megacorporations doing volume discounting (including Walmart, that bastion of bleeding-heart-degenerate-liberalism).  Clearly, this is a shocking right-wing conspiracy.  :rolleyes:

RPGPundit

I should've expected you to swallow Dancey's load so readily.  

I thought you were a historian.  You telling me you don't at all recall why the fuck price fixing was made illegal in the first place?  

Here's a hint:  It had more to do with big business than small . . .

Well, I think the practical effect of this on games is that if a publisher believes it's to their advantage to protect certain retailers from being undercut, the publisher can prevent that by forcing some or all retailers to agree to price floors.

As everyone seems to agree, the retailers who would most need this sort of protection are B&M shops since they have much higher overhead than online sellers. However, B&M shops can't directly ask for the establishment of price floors (even under the current ruling this would likely be seen as price fixing; see p. 18 regarding the source of the "impetus" for price restraint). Nevertheless, the industry can't help but notice, if it cares to maintain or expand B&M retail as a viable channel for certain products, that price floors are now an option.

So I think we may see an effect where publishers design and market products specifically for in-person retail sale and view B&M retailers as "partners". In essence they'll preserve a higher margin for those sales, but in return they'll expect either to share that margin (i.e., push for smaller discounts through the distribution chain) or to see the B&M retailers prove their worth by increasing orders/sales.

Basically I see this mainly happening in products that already do well in non-discount channels. Whereas for products that garner a large percentage of sales through discount/online retailers, the publishers would be crazy to impose price floors--it wouldn't mean any more money in their pockets compared to the defacto price floor of the discounts they give to retailers.

In conclusion I think we might see a further division of the market into "B&M-oriented" mainstream and mail-order niche.

This isn't to say that I agree with the ruling. At least on the face of it, it seems like a radical gamble to meddle with caselaw that's been settled for nearly a century...especially when it seems like an issue which could be settled by Congress if there really was a demand for a change. On top of that some of the reasoning seems pretty dodgy, such as (p. 17) equating price floors with the costs of traditional methods of promotion (advertising) and quality improvement (selecting better inputs to production).

In fact I think there's a fair chance that Congress could take action if the ruling really does lead to price increases.

Quote from: J ArcaneIt's all just part of Ryan's classic shill behavior.  The disengenousness drips from his posts as always, and in his current "consultant" role, he needs new bogus projects to try and con companies into undertaking, so that he gets his fee.  

I wonder how many suckers he'll bankrupt with this one?

Good point.  I wonder how many people who bankrupted with Organized Play.  

I could never see how that was A) a good business idea and B) would make money.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaAnyone remember a few years back when John Wick claimed that anyone who used an RPG book without buying a copy of their own was committing theft, depriving the author and publisher of due revenue?

!i!

You have to be kidding me!  John Wick said that?

So anyone who has checked out a book from the library is committing theft because we are depriving the author and publiser due revenue?

What a Maroon

I don't know if this is right-wing or left-wing. I only know this situation scares the fuck out of me. Maybe I'm too alarmed at this; I don't know. But once a product is in my hands, the manufacturer should not be dictating how much I sell it for. This won't affect sales of strawberries or milk, but it MIGHT increase costs of rpgs. I'll tell you something though, if I were a game retailer (online or not), and an rpg manufacturer (besides WoTC or White Wolf) tried to dictate terms to me, and pull this price-fixing shit on me, I'd laugh in his face, and stop carrying his games. Nobody other than the top two are worth the headache anyway (except maybe Games Workshop).

Frankly, Dancey and a few others on TBP were way too gung-ho about "support teh B&M stores for rpgs, or we're dooooo000med!". All this bullshit from him about how us plebes are too short-sighted for not purchasing from the game stores, and should be fucking thrilled about the privilege about paying more for less, as it will "improve the hobby". :mad: :rolleyes:

I have no doubt that Dancey is intelligent, and I love d20, but his views on this matter disgust me, and I cordially invite him to eat shit. This ruling says that stores aren't allowed to compete on price. That sucks.

I don't want any part of it, and all it will do is inspire me to be even more discriminating with my gaming dollar, and focus on the LARGE Internet retailers (Amazon and e-bay), thus REDUCING my choices. Yay! Welcome to the future! :haw:

P.S. This is my sad face.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaAnyone remember a few years back when John Wick claimed that anyone who used an RPG book without buying a copy of their own was committing theft, depriving the author and publisher of due revenue?  Dancey's argument here is essentially the same, only he has a court ruling to back him up.  It remains equally absurd, though.

!i!

Do you perchance have a link to Wick's statement? Slightly off-topic, I know......forgive me?

You know, my dad is one of those guys good at saving money. He can squeeze blood from a nickel. I'm starting to understand him a little better right about now...

The fucked up thing is....I don't object to paying huge sums for games. I just object to being essentially told that I'm hurting the hobby by not purchasing from B&M game stores, and that I'm a bad person for buying or selling significantly below MSRP. :mad:

Here is a part of his article I just had to laugh at:

-------------------
The effects of this are enormous.  When people know they can buy a good elsewhere at a cheaper price they put pressure on all sellers to lower the sales price of a good.  So retailers are faced with constant complaints from customers regarding their pricing.  No retailer likes to tell a customer "no", as doing so only hurts sales.  Full service retailers who sustain their price levels can alienate shoppers who feel they are "being taken advantage of", or, if they choose to lower prices to match discounters, they break the fundamental assumptions built into their cost of doing business, which can lead to a downward spiral to closure.
-------------------

It's called competition.  You either compete or you die.   If you rely on only being a B&M store and don't try to pick up some of the internet sales then too damn bad.

I love how Dancy loves to cling to the past and how the hobby needs game stores, but it doesn't

Quote from: Sacrificial LambFrankly, Dancey and a few others on TBP were way too gung-ho about "support teh B&M stores for rpgs, or we're dooooo000med!". All this bullshit from him about how us plebes are too short-sighted for not purchasing from the game stores, and should be fucking thrilled about the privilege about paying more for less, as it will "improve the hobby". :mad: :rolleyes:

Dancy and others are too gun-ho to hold on the game stores and the past, but even without game stores the hobby will adapt and continue.

Quote from: Sacrificial LambI have no doubt that Dancey is intelligent,

I would disagree.  Outside of WOTC what has he done?  He started a business that really couldn't make money and that's either closed or barely hanging out.

And he committed some near-crimes with that board member email crap he pulled.  He is pretty much a scumbag.

Quote from: Sacrificial LambDo you perchance have a link to Wick's statement? Slightly off-topic, I know......forgive me?

I dunno if Wick said anything like that but if he did it was probably around the time of this thread, when the concept of "freeloading gamers" was being advanced by some people.

After due consideration, I have decided that this will have... no effect at all. Ryan Dancey - one of the "roleplaying is 20 minutes of fun packed into four hours" guys - is full of shit, as per usual.

Prices of rpgs will rise as Christmas approaches - just as they always do, and for all other luxury goods - then there'll be huge post-Christmas sales. Then things will settle back down again, with price rises going along with inflation.

It will have zero effect on your FLGS, which will continue as always to fail at the same huge rate as other retail businesses fail - 85% or more fail within the first 18 months. As with all other businesses, the tendency is for several small stores to coalesce by means of price undercutting, business failure and stock purchase into one large store. Again, like the high failure rate, this is nothing unique in gaming. The FLGS will never die completely. There are always going to be more roleplayers than fifty year old blokes with choo-choo trains. If those can have their own stores do well, so can roleplaying.

And gamers will continue to say "doom!" on message boards and in game stores everywhere. Roleplaying has been dying for so long that some impatient people are hoping that euthanasia laws will be passed soon.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaAnyone remember a few years back when John Wick claimed that anyone who used an RPG book without buying a copy of their own was committing theft, depriving the author and publisher of due revenue?
!i!

I think it was way more funnier when Ed Cha claimed that free adventure modules on the Internet were doing the same. :keke:

With regard to the "theft" remark, I've looked around and I can't find a quote by John Wick on the matter, though I clearly recall him waxing hyperbolic about it.  Reading the thread that Elliot linked to, though, I was surprised to see that Bruce Baugh was supporting that absurd horseshit.  In fact, a number of rather prominent people whom I otherwise respect were voicing that specious opinion.

Quote from: MelanI think it was way more funnier when Ed Cha claimed that free adventure modules on the Internet were doing the same.

Apparently people are always worried about someone else somewhere else being willing to do a job or sell a thing for less money.  Poverty doth make cowards of us all.

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaWith regard to the "theft" remark, I've looked around and I can't find a quote by John Wick on the matter, though I clearly recall him waxing hyperbolic about it.  Reading the thread that Elliot linked to, though, I was surprised to see that Bruce Baugh was supporting that absurd horseshit.  In fact, a number of rather prominent people whom I otherwise respect were voicing that specious opinion.

!i!

In a consumerist society, the greatest sin is not to spend.

I don't know, whether the prices rise or not, I'm thinking this heavy-handed BS is a damn good excuse for me to begin revisiting JAGS, and Microlite 20 like I've been wanting to for the past month anyway. Screw the industry, I'm going to support my fellow gamers who I don't always have to be suspicious of trying to squeeze every penny they can out of me.