Quote from: SettembriniSure there are totally mainstream indie products. But in this thread nobody ever discussed the D&D supplementary pdf market, which is even indier than the Indians, as they are even independent from the Forge and have no one to talk to, but their three customers (Hey Guys! I love your stuff! It was me and my friends who bought Feast of Crows! *Wave*)

Originally, I was thinking of them, too.  Got sidetracked, though.

Quote from: John MorrowThe books are cheap because the profits (and, honestly, quality) are low, not because there is any efficiency in being small but because there is no conventional marketing (e.g., print ads in Dragon) and because the authors expect little profit.

When you bypass the three-tier distribution system, your per-unit profit soars. John Wick, for example, sold 3000 copies of Orkworld and made more money off that than he did from any AEG product he ever wrote.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenSo, you'd like me to work towards being consistent by your standards?

Okay, funny.

It's a depressing world that thinks making clear the intention of "Serious debate" vs. "shooting the breeze" in a written public medium is 'bowing to someone else's standards'.

But hey, I'm good with this Levi. I just continue doing what I do, it will at least entertain me.

But I still have to leave in three weeks or I lose $20.

Quote from: gleichmanBut I still have to leave in three weeks or I lose $20.

Crappy deal.  

I figure that if we keep scrapping, by the time your weeks run out, we'll have figured out a useful way to argue with each other by then.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenCrappy deal.  

I figure that if we keep scrapping, by the time your weeks run out, we'll have figured out a useful way to argue with each other by then.

I'm easy to deal with. Just ask Balbinus for advice.

Or you could just agree with me, that works too.

Quote from: gleichmanOr you could just agree with me, that works too.

Heretic!

Quote from: Levi KornelsenLet me tell you a few of the reasons that I think this is so.

• Because the writers of these products are personally enthusiastic about them, and that enthusiasm is contagious.
  
• Because the games are individually cheap, and don't require supplements; the buy-in is low, low, low.
• Because the fans of these games can swap stories about hunting them down and getting them, and about how the different games affect their play.
• Because there's some small controversy, as people react negatively to some of them.  Many of these game provoke a reaction, and that sells games.

Your thoughts?

So, 15 pages in, lemme address the OP:
I think Settembrini's right. That small press/indie games have found a long dormant niche in the gaming community. I think there has always been a market for the small and the odd in the gaming community -- anyone remember SJG's little baggy games? Car Wars and supplements and such? Cool stuff, and started a freaking cult.

But in the 90s, gaming production seemingly moved heavily into a bigger, better looking format that also, subsequently, required a big buy in (Vampire 2e anyone?). This was also nothing new. AD&D was all cool, hard-backed and supplementilicious. But the standards of production shot up, as the market was dwindling -- remember the lean years when there was no DnD in print?!

ANYWAY, I'm rambling. So there's a new wave of small press RPGs boasting innovative mechanics and fast play. Buzz on the street* is that they are delivering. And that they are cool† and that they are relatively cheap§.

I don't think it has much to do with the authors and the enthusiasm. That's just marketing. Can be replicated by other companies or mediums or whatever.

But controversy and the coolness factor? I have personally born witness to both factors selling my game. So I suspect that those elements are a factor as well. Of course, I haven't been audited by the FDIC or deposed by a grand jury, so what the hell do I know?

-L

* AKA The INTERNET

† Because they are different and not popular. Also, because they are cool.

§ Sorry Charlie, $80-90 to play DnD or $22 to play Dogs in the Vineyard with my friends. People don't think in the long term of "I'll be playing this game for the rest of my life." People think, "I want a cool game right now and I've got $20."

Quote from: Paul WatsonWhen you bypass the three-tier distribution system, your per-unit profit soars. John Wick, for example, sold 3000 copies of Orkworld and made more money off that than he did from any AEG product he ever wrote.

Very good point.  But when you rely on print-on-demand companies to print your books and fulfill your orders, the higher per-book costs will eat up a lot of those savings.  John Wick took a risk and printed out 3,000 copies the old fashioned way and was able to sell them.  If they hadn't sold, he'd have an endless supply of doorshops laying in boxes around his house.  Also bear in mind that when he was writing for AEG, he was paying to keep AEG in business, not simply feeding the three-tier distribution monster.

Don't get me wrong.  It's still a good point and a lot of these vanity-publishing efforts wouldn't be viable without print-on-demand and direct distribution.  That's certainly how I'd do it.  My skepticism comes from wondering how far that can scale.

Quote from: John MorrowDon't get me wrong.  It's still a good point and a lot of these vanity-publishing efforts wouldn't be viable without print-on-demand and direct distribution.  That's certainly how I'd do it.  My skepticism comes from wondering how far that can scale.

So ... I'm going to assume that you know the whole set of techniques about how to bootstrap early profits into longer print runs, and basically scale up production (and profit margin) in response to demand.

My take on it is that it scales all the way fuckin' up.  If you end up selling 3000 copies there's no reason that your 3000th should be at the low profit margins offered by print-on-demand.  You're skeptical.  That's cool.  Can you be more specific?

This whole thread seems to have gone off on a tangent over profitability. Why does profitability matter as long as it's positive? That means the model is sustainable as long the creator-owners don't depend on it as their primary source of income and don't mind working for the love of it. Both those conditions hold, pretty self-evidently, for a large proportion of indie publishers. And even if a few of them drop out of the hobby or move on to jobs at Wizards or videogame companies, more will likely take their place.

Given all that, the only limit to growth is the demand side: how much of an appetite is there for this stuff? Personally, I think there are some warning signs. I'd be surprised if the model of "play a game a couple times and then move onto another" is sustainable over the long run. Even less so with the existence of eBay, which effectively allows a number of "one-off games" to circulate. This also brings up the contradiction between two needs for such games. They have to be innovative, but they also have to be easy to learn.

FWIW, I don't think these problems apply to Burning Wheel. The game might need a new edition at some point (personally, I think some of the rules are confusing, at least in presentation), but the paradigm is traditional open-ended campaigns. 'course, then you have the problem that if you have BW and like it, there's no reason to buy more indie games.

Just to be clear, before I respond to any of the detailed posts, people can say I have won or not as they wish but I make no claims myself to having won anything.

In fact, although I agree largely with what I posted (0bviously, though I'll return to one bit where John Morrow clearly owned me in a moment) I didn't personally disagree with Brian's post.  I didn't substantiate anything or particularly try to, I haven't any issue with someone noticing that.

I'm picking out a couple of immediate points, I'll try to come back in more detail later.

Quote from: John MorrowA lot of the Indie games really aren't priced better than commercial games, especially if you compare page count and trim size.  

I don't count page size.  Page size and play value have very little to do with each other.  Games like L5R and Seventh Sea soured me on page count for keeps pretty much and the trend to pages of to me entirely useless game fiction also add little IMO.

Quote from: John MorrowAs for "complete in one book", so are a lot of commercial games but that's got a catch, too.

Increasingly few in my experience.  Pendragon used to be, the new edition isn't.  WFRP used to be, the new edition isn't.  Runequest used to be, the new edition isn't.  Relatively few games now being published by mainstream companies are designed to be complete in one book and increasingly games that were when rereleased no longer are.

It used to be standard for games to be complete in one book, since the 1990s I think there has been a noticeable trend away from that.

Quote from: John MorrowA game that appeals to more styles of play is going to have a broader audience than a game that has a very narrow appeal.

I didn't say otherwise, ask the guys on rpg.net, one of my standard rants is that focussed games have narrower appeal than less focussed games.  I didn't talk about focussed games in my post I don't think.  It's not a trend I particularly endorse.

Quote from: John MorrowIncluding the vast majority of actual gamers happily playing D&D?

Fair point.

Quote from: lukeI think Settembrini's right. That small press/indie games have found a long dormant niche in the gaming community. I think there has always been a market for the small and the odd in the gaming community -- anyone remember SJG's little baggy games? Car Wars and supplements and such? Cool stuff, and started a freaking cult.

I don't dispute that Indie games have a niche and can sell.  But the argument being made is about growth and I think the question is whether it can keep growing once it saturates the niche.

I suspect a few Indie games, perhaps even your game, will break out into the mainstream.  But I don't see evidence that the vast majority of Indie games, including high-quality well-done games like Dogs in the Vineyard, will break out into the mainstream.  That's not to say you shouldn't try.  It simply means that I think some of the "irrational exuberance" over Indie games is unwarranted.

Quote from: lukeANYWAY, I'm rambling. So there's a new wave of small press RPGs boasting innovative mechanics and fast play. Buzz on the street* is that they are delivering. And that they are cool† and that they are relatively cheap§.

Nothing I haven't seen before, which is why I have some pessimism.  See the buzz that welcomed Fudge, Theatrix, and a bunch of other games that had innovative mechanics, fast play, buzz on the internet, etc.  

Quote from: lukeBut controversy and the coolness factor? I have personally born witness to both factors selling my game. So I suspect that those elements are a factor as well. Of course, I haven't been audited by the FDIC or deposed by a grand jury, so what the hell do I know?

Of course it sells games.  But the question is whether it will keep driving growth or plateu, once the "street" becomes saturated with buzz and then start to fade when the buzz moves on to the next cool innovative thing.

Quote from: luke§ Sorry Charlie, $80-90 to play DnD or $22 to play Dogs in the Vineyard with my friends. People don't think in the long term of "I'll be playing this game for the rest of my life." People think, "I want a cool game right now and I've got $20."

Quite a few people have run 20 year campaigns with D&D and many more have played nothing but D&D for decades.  Do you see DitV being played like that?  Of course D&D isn't the only non-Indie role-playing game on the market, but I'm sure you already know that.

As for thinking, "I want a cool game right now and I've got $20." unless I'm at GenCon or my FLGS carries DitV, I'm out of luck.  When I wanted DitV, I had to look up how to order it and then wait for it to come in the mail.  I also had to pay shipping.

I'd like to introduce you to John Q. Public. I can't tell you definatively why BW has been significantly increasing sales year over year since release. But I can give a data point telling you why I purchased BW.

I don't do RPGnet. I had never even heard of The Forge. I had heard the name Dogs In The Vineyard, but nothing about it.

I heard about Burning Wheel from Adam Jury. He made an offhand comment on on the Dumpshock forums about things he planned to do with Shadowrun 4 finally shipped.  One of those things was finally getting around to trying out Burning Wheel. So internet buzz. Check!

Then I happened upon, I think thanks to a post on the same forums by JKWong, RPGPundit talking about Nutkinland. I remember Nutkinland from my days at ENWorld (I had bought 3e the day it landed at the FLGS). So I came over and it was OK, there were people playing different kinds of games and they were OK.  On the off change someone had heard about it I asked about Burning Wheel, and Paka answered. He gave a basic rundown, and also warned me about it being "crunchie". Satisfied customer that was also cogniscent and up front about different aspects, both positive and potentially negative. Check!

I checked out the download samples. Liked those. Internet presense for marketing effect. Check!

I went to the local FLGS, I don't like to do mail order. They had a copy. Able to sell direct and through traditional channels. Check!

So I went and looked at it.  At first I was struck by the 1/2 size format. But I had liked what I saw on the web, and I liked the price. Easily low enough that to take a flier on it. Competative price. Check!

But in the end is that it is the overall quality of workmanship. If it hadn't worked well as a game, if it hadn't supported ass kicking adventure, then one and likely two links in the chain above would have broken. And even if they hadn't I wouldn't be talking about it myself.  It is more than just being jaded. It addresses issues that I hadn't even fully identified, though I felt were there. Like an invisible elephant sitting at the table.


P.S. I love irony. A big whopping chunk of irony, incase you missed it, is that RPGPundit himself features as a link in the above chain.

Quote from: TonyLBSo ... I'm going to assume that you know the whole set of techniques about how to bootstrap early profits into longer print runs, and basically scale up production (and profit margin) in response to demand.

Correct.  And as that happens, it becomes more like a business and less like a vanity publishing hobby.  Lots of game companies started out that way including, well, Wizards of the Coast and TSR.  Have you read John Tynes "Death of the Minotaur" on Salon.com?

Quote from: TonyLBMy take on it is that it scales all the way fuckin' up.  If you end up selling 3000 copies there's no reason that your 3000th should be at the low profit margins offered by print-on-demand.  You're skeptical.  That's cool.  Can you be more specific?

FYI, as a disclaimer, years go I worked in book production at Random House.  I estimated printing costs and wrote up profit and lost sheets for various titles.  I even wrote an inventory tracking system to help them handle reprints.  I have some experience with the economics of publishing, though print-on-demand has changed some of what I know.

Part of the problem involves what almost killed TSR.  When you print books, there is a risk of overprinting.  And someone has to pay for the books that don't sell.  Basically, there is an overhead that is ultimately going to eat into a writer's profit or increase a writer's risk that they can't make go away.

In print-on-demand, the per unit costs are high but the risks are low.  If you do a big print run, the per unit costs are low but the risks are high.  When it all averages out, it can be six one way, a half-dozen the other (some will be winners but others will be losers) until a publisher can generate reliable enough sales that they can be sure to sell out a larger print run, thus getting the low per-unit cost with low risk.  That's why publishers become so risk-averse.  Nobody wants to pay for books they have to pulp because they don't sell (or have boxes of books sitting in their basement or garage until the end of time).  If nothing else, it costs money to warehouse books that don't sell (that's also why there is a focus on just-in-time fulfillment).  John Wick figured he could sell 3,000 copies of Orkworld and make a profit, which he did.  If it hadn't sold, he would have had to eat the cost of printing and had been stuck with boxes of books that won't sell.  Even if you use your early profits to bootstrap larger print runs, you can lose it all if your book doesn't sell.

The Indie publishers who make the transition will be those who can get reliable enough sales to take risk on actual print runs, rather than print-on-demand.  I suspect that some of the Indie games will make that transition, perhaps even Burning Wheel.  I doubt DitV ever will, because of it's tight focus, even though I think it's a very well done game (I own a copy).  But at that point, they'll lose the flexibility of an Indie and they'll start looking like all the other commercial publishers.  That's the price of growth.

And one other question is if an Indie game goes mainstream, will all that buzz disappear and will people turn on them for selling out, like a punk band releasing a Top 40 hit or opening for a pop singer?  One way to insulate that is to spend more time pushing quality and less time pushing the Indie mystique.