OBS - Monopolies and their TOC. (Split off thread).

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

Again I think the panic is overblown. OBS new policy seems specifically aimed at getting Venger to stop bad-mouthing DTRPG to market his games. If they were planning to declare certain content "Political" and ban it, why have none of Pundits books been pulled?

This.

I know it's against the very nature of the Internet, but I generally find it more productive to react to things that can/are happening rather than things that might hypothetically happen.

Especially as we've seen this all before. The sky was supposed to be falling when Drivethru implemented content policy in the first place (largely as a response to Tournament of Rapists) and none of the doomladen predictions about widespread censorship came true.

 

[VisionStorm]

My teenage punk band Gonorrhea never got offered a single gig.

We weren't transgressive. We just sucked.

I know you jest, but one thing to keep in mind about this and what Voros was saying about movie theaters is that there's a difference between not being featured in a specific venue with limited space and time slots, and an online store with unlimited shelf space working 24/7. Even comparing it to Netflix there are still differences involved, since that type of platform still has to deal with things like getting the rights to stream stuff. But none of that applies to OBS or Drivethru—they're the one central repository for RPGs everyone knows and goes to.

 

[Baulderstone]

If I'm an author and I go around saying 'Fuck Chapters' on social media should I be surprised if they don't stock my book?

Which is why I was the first guy to call Venger out on his BS in the other thread. My point is that because of him, every other publisher now has to grapple with the concern that even a polite criticism of DriveThru policies might result in them losing their account.

Realistically, I don't think it is a big concern, but that is easy for me as my RPG income is just bonus money. I can afford to lose it. For people that make a significant part of their income on DriveThru, this kind of policy change is genuinely stressful. I found you dismissal of their concerns insensitive. And as for your analysis that as soon as the hippies came along, the comic code died just isn't that accurate. It was a long, long process.

Is DriveThru likely to become more aggressive after this change? Probably not. Is this change going to cause a chilling effect on game publishers? Based on private conversations, it already is.

 

[VisionStorm]

Again I think the panic is overblown. OBS new policy seems specifically aimed at getting Venger to stop bad-mouthing DTRPG to market his games. If they were planning to declare certain content "Political" and ban it, why have none of Pundits books been pulled?

None of Pundit's stuff is political other than his online persona, though. So there's nothing in his actual products they can point to, to try to get banned (not that I agree with banning stuff just for being political, just pointing that out).

If you are concerned, follow the example set by Frog God Games, Open Ended Games, D101 Games, Postmortem Studios and others: diversify. Host your own website, run your own storefront that you can't be removed from and partner with Shop. Locate desktop publishing companies and partner with them directly. Most of all, don't poke the dragon.

If/when I ever get around actually finishing my stuff and publishing it I plan to do that by default. But that still leaves the fact that Drivethru is the central store everyone goes to and knows about, while most people aren't going to find one thousand different publisher-specific online stores who's names they might not even remember. So relying on your own personal store alone puts you at a massive disadvantage.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

And as for your analysis that as soon as the hippies came along, the comic code died just isn't that accurate. It was a long, long process.

That was me, not Voros.

And the analysis is not that it died in terms of disappearing, it died as an effective mechanism of restricting content.

Realistically, everyone that signed up to the CCA did so because they didn't actually have any intention of creating content that would have broken it regardless of the content's existence. Stan Lee said as much:

.I never thought about the Code when I was writing a story, because basically I never wanted to do anything that was to my mind too violent or too sexy. I was aware that young people were reading these books, and had there not been a Code, I don't think that I would have done the stories any differently.

Warren Publishing ignored the code from the start and you can make a good case that they partly succeeded because they were able to market themselves as more "edgy" than their CCA approved rivals.

So I stand by my analysis; post about 1968 the CCA had absolutely no discernible effect on content and those who signed up to it were genuinely doing so voluntarily (and largely doing so as a marketing ploy; to help reassure nervous parents; rather than because they were worried about ramifications if they didn't do so)

If you want an actual example of serious censorship in the comics industry I suggest that the Zap4 trial is much more significant. That's actual criminal charges and proven ramifications for creators.

 

[BedrockBrendan]

There's an order of magnitude difference between Scorsese's film and Breillat's films. Outside of the US, Scorsese's film was not particularly controversial, Kazantzakis is a widely admired writer who was long considered for a Nobel Prize.

A better comparison would be Pink Flamingos, which you will never see on any streaming service besides Criterion.

And that's really only because the film is older and a recognized classic of its kind. The BBC reversal of their ban on the film admits as much.

Fair enough, but I am in the US so I am just going off my memory of what it was like here (Last Temptation of Christ was extremely controversial here). But I think more important than whether LTOC or Pink Flamingos were given broad platforms (Last Temptation wasn't available everywhere here either: I think I watched it on video for example because my parents got it), the point I really wanted to make was more about whether a film like that should be viewed and whether the people calling for it to be banned should have been listened to. I can't speak to Breillat, because I don't know her films but something like Last Temptation or John Waters movies are the sorts of films I would like people to feel they can make. And my only point here about OBS is wherever they draw the line, it effectively makes it not worth making a game for most publishers if you feel it will get caught up in their guidelines. And that could effect the kind of content people see in the games they buy. And like I said before, this is going to boil down to what you want. I've been in these conversations long enough to understand there are a wide range of views among gamers over what they think is a reasonable line for the biggest RPG platform to draw (and many want it much more restricted than I do, and it is far for people to disagree over that). Obviously I am biased because I am a publisher, and so my concerns are more around where is this going, how intensely will this be enforced, and do I have to worry about content in my games that gets remotely close to the edge. Where I have been increasingly concerned is not my inability to make a game like Pink Flamingos (That is not my style, I am not going to make a game like that). But I do make games that get into the crime genre, horror, etc. So guidelines like this, tend to make me nervous. But I was especially struck by the new guidelines around hostile marketing and social media behavior. That makes me wonder how much the other guidelines are going to be enforced now.

I think especially as the discourse around many of the issues that are coming up in those guidelines change and become more debated in the hobby, it is going to make publishers nervous. There are rules against things most people object to in real life (racism, homophobia etc) but there are lots of gray areas (plenty of novels feature racist characters for example that don't convey a racist message, often the opposite, and we are living in a period in the hobby where there are serious debates over whether orcs are racist). The issue is, for me at least, if someone wants to make an RPG dealing with serious themes like you might get in a film or movie, it is potentially going to raise this concern and that could effect content, or it could mean you need to go to OBS to get clarification or even permission. Again, they've been pretty light in enforcing these kinds of things the past several years. This is art. Art is easily misunderstood

And like I said before, a lot of this is going to be wait and see. It is going to depend on how they implement these guidelines.

 

[BedrockBrendan]

For sure, and Venger could use Itch.io if he cared to. Lots of ttrpgers are on both these days anyway.

I actually find separate quote posts like you did easier to follow than large multi quotes

 

[BedrockBrendan]

If you are concerned, follow the example set by Frog God Games, Open Ended Games, D101 Games, Postmortem Studios and others: diversify. Host your own website, run your own storefront that you can't be removed from and partner with Shop. Locate desktop publishing companies and partner with them directly. Most of all, don't poke the dragon.

This isn't going to be easy for a lot of people. Like I said I don't have an exclusive agreement with OBS, my stuff is available in print elsewhere, I can put PDFs up elsewhere. My print arrangements are pretty good, but I wouldn't be able to function as a publisher without the PDF sales on OBS (PDF sales elsewhere can be tough). Some publishers are in a different position and can do things like you point out. But the reason OBS is important is that is the landing page for most people who are looking for new RPGs, and there is an assumption that is where all RPGs go (again, I constantly get asked by people why my books aren't in print, and they are in print, just not on OBS).

I do think not poking the dragon is good advice. Too many people do that without realistically considering the consequences for themselves and others (they just kind of charge in). At the same time, the new policy makes me quite nervous because it is pretty broad and makes it difficult to vocalize any complaint, critique or observation publicly (because of the one warning thing, even if you don't feel what you are doing falls within the parameters of the guidelines, it probably isn't worth the risk). I think part of why I also get nervous about this is it feels like the unspoken part of the new guidelines could be OBS is going to take a different posture towards its publishers now (perhaps not, perhaps it is targets at this one instance, but it feels kind of hostile to me).

 

[Gringnr]

I mean, yeah, eventually....it took close to 20 years for any comics publisher in the US to dare publish without it (the famous drug issue of Amazing Spider-man), and I doubt by that point it was of much comfort to EC Comics and the many other publishers driven out of business by the code.

And while that's all true, the CCA analogy still crumbles in the face of the technology and freedom available to allow anyone to immediately pivot to selling their own product to whomever they like, anywhere in the world, as in the case that kicked this whole discussion off in the first place.

 

[Baulderstone]

And while that's all true, the CCA analogy still crumbles in the face of the technology and freedom available to allow anyone to immediately pivot to selling their own product to whomever they like, anywhere in the world, as in the case that kicked this whole discussion off in the first place.

I think the analogy works. Being in DriveThru is the equivalent of your comic being carried by a major distributor like Diamond, while selling them on your website is the equivalent of selling your comic out of the boot of your car. Being free to sell something isn't the same as having eyeballs on the thing you are selling.

 

[BedrockBrendan]

This is part of the policy that escaped my attention (not related to content but I think important). From what I can gather it has been part of the policy since 2020 at least----I haven't put up a game on OBS myself since 2020 so I believe this will be my first time in the fall putting up game with the following guideline:

Release Schedule: We expect that if you create a title that you wish to sell at our store, you will release that title on our store within 24 hours of releasing it elsewhere.

We expect that once you release a title on a particular date, you will not try to manipulate or maximize marketing exposure by re-creating or re-releasing that same title at a later date. Any unethical manipulation of site features or algorithms to get more front-page exposure for a title is unacceptable.

Certainly would like to get other publishers who have released under this guideline sense of how tightly this is enforced and how narrowly it is defined. Also does it apply to both print and PDFs (there is lag between when my print books hit shelves and when my PDFs usually go up, not sure how easy those would be to coordinate). This also seems like it would generally make putting PDFs up on other platforms, and on OBS, a bit more of a pain.

Also on this bit:

Pricing: We expect fair treatment on the pricing of your titles. Please price your titles as low on our marketplace as you do anywhere else; we understand that short-term sales on backlist titles can vary between stores temporarily (for up to a week or so), but having titles constantly reduced elsewhere for cheaper, or pricing them differently upon initial release, does not constitute fair treatment in our view. Likewise, including extra content for no extra cost in alternate versions made available only elsewhere is not fair treatment.

This is about pricing so maybe my concern here doesn't apply. But if you censored content in a PDF to meet concerns expressed by OBS for their site, and effectively released two different versions of the game at the same price (one version for OBS that contains changes they requested, one elsewhere that is full original version), is that filed under unfair treatment (technically you are offering extra content at no cost).

 

[Bunch]

I think the analogy works. Being in DriveThru is the equivalent of your comic being carried by a major distributor like Diamond, while selling them on your website is the equivalent of selling your comic out of the boot of your car. Being free to sell something isn't the same as having eyeballs on the thing you are selling.

Somewhat relevant to this discussion. I believe Diamond (the exclusive distributor of DC and Marvel for a number of decades prior to Covid) was investigated for being a monopoly at one point and found to not be because as far as the government was concerned because you could get books from Barnes and Nobles. So OBS isn't likely to be found a monopoly in the government's eyes. They aren't super interested in niches that the world doesn't depend on.

 

[BedrockBrendan]

Especially as we've seen this all before. The sky was supposed to be falling when Drivethru implemented content policy in the first place (largely as a response to Tournament of Rapists) and none of the doomladen predictions about widespread censorship came true.

But one reason why the policy may have been implemented so restrainedly is because people made their opinions known. I think it is fair when policy changes are made, when the topic of where to draw the line comes up, for people to say what they think about it (and I think that applies to all views, people who aren't bothered should be expressing their position as well). Companies like OBS do try to gauge the mood and one way they do that is seeing what people are saying online, in blogs, on youtube. Overall I think it is a healthy discussion to have. But it is meant to be an exchange. Someone expresses concerns about a policy, someone can identify where those concerns might be exaggerated or misguided. It is still good for us to talk about this

For me I was concerned when the guidelines were first introduced, and I remain observant and concerned about them (but like I said, they have been restrained which is good). But ultimately I want an RPG creation environment where people feel like they can make the games they want, express what they want, and that what is possible isn't determined by a single influential company (which I think effectively they can do because you have to be on OBS to be relevant).

And it may be that they always intended to be restrained about it. I don't know. But I do think its a good that people express concerns if they have them (and obviously there will be a range of views from "Its the apocalypse!" to "This makes me uneasy" to "This is nothing to worry about").

 

[Gringnr]

I think the analogy works. Being in DriveThru is the equivalent of your comic being carried by a major distributor like Diamond, while selling them on your website is the equivalent of selling your comic out of the boot of your car. Being free to sell something isn't the same as having eyeballs on the thing you are selling.

Horse pucky. When the "boot of your car" has global marketing capability and instantaneous digital delivery anywhere in the world, then we'll talk. Literally nothing stopping anyone from buying ads, doing marketing, etc. This is so far from the CCA analogy, it will take a year for the light from the CCA analogy to reach it.

Is it the same as being on dtrpg? No. But, is it the same as being a comic in 1971 that can't get the CCA Seal? Nope. Not even close.

 

[BedrockBrendan]

Somewhat relevant to this discussion. I believe Diamond (the exclusive distributor of DC and Marvel for a number of decades prior to Covid) was investigated for being a monopoly at one point and found to not be because as far as the government was concerned because you could get books from Barnes and Nobles. So OBS isn't likely to be found a monopoly in the government's eyes. They aren't super interested in niches that the world doesn't depend on.

I don't think there is any chance the government does anything about a niche hobby like RPGs (and even Amazon, which I would say is effectively a monopoly, isn't in any danger of being cracked down on). Generally I prefer when companies have less power rather than more over our lives, what we can say, and what we can buy (I have all kinds of issues with genre movies I like to buy from Amazon for example, and I think their place in the market really created problems there, but I think that is also a whole other topic on its own and probably beyond the scope of the pub). In the case of OBS, it is going to be more about where the mood of the hobby itself is. These kinds of discussions are likely the place where larger companies get a sense of what direction the consumer pressure is moving

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

Somewhat relevant to this discussion. I believe Diamond (the exclusive distributor of DC and Marvel for a number of decades prior to Covid) was investigated for being a monopoly at one point and found to not be because as far as the government was concerned because you could get books from Barnes and Nobles. So OBS isn't likely to be found a monopoly in the government's eyes. They aren't super interested in niches that the world doesn't depend on.

I'd have to refresh my memory, but I think the main thing that got them off the hook was that they only had a monopoly on singles, not trades.

 

[BedrockBrendan]

Horse pucky. When the "boot of your car" has global marketing capability and instantaneous digital delivery anywhere in the world, then we'll talk. Literally nothing stopping anyone from buying ads, doing marketing, etc. This is so far from the CCA analogy, it will take a year for the light from the CCA analogy to reach it.

Is it the same as being on dtrpg? No. But, is it the same as being a comic in 1971 that can't get the CCA Seal? Nope. Not even close.

You still have to fund the book you are making. Art cost, writing, editing, etc. All that has to be justified by revenue on the other side of things. If there is effectively one player in town (and I would argue there is) for having viable sales of PDFs (and increasingly print), then what that company says about content guidelines is going to shape overall what the hobby looks. You might have a handful of exceptions, people who lucked out elsewhere, but overall it is a question of what kind of RPGs people want to see and to be made available.

 

[BedrockBrendan]

Is it the same as being on dtrpg? No. But, is it the same as being a comic in 1971 that can't get the CCA Seal? Nope. Not even close.

There isn't going to be a perfect analogy. Our industry is different from others. But I think it is unmistakable how much power OBS has. If they put in their guidelines, "We will not tolerate kobolds in any book. Absolutely, under no circumstances, may you have kobolds of any kind." Publishers would definitely stop putting kobolds in their books. Again, maybe the guy who has his own website and a small group of loyal fans wouldn't, maybe WOTC or company like that has the reach to make the trade off and include kobolds. But most RPGs would no longer have kobolds.

 

[Gringnr]

There isn't going to be a perfect analogy. Our industry is different from others. But I think it is unmistakable how much power OBS has. If they put in their guidelines, "We will not tolerate kobolds in any book. Absolutely, under no circumstances, may you have kobolds of any kind." Publishers would definitely stop putting kobolds in their books. Again, maybe the guy who has his own website and a small group of loyal fans wouldn't, maybe WOTC or company like that has the reach to make the trade off and include kobolds. But most RPGs would no longer have kobolds.

Why are we comparing a completely nonsensical hypothetical to a real-world situation in which OBS is exercising its right to moderate content on the platform they own? Sure OBS could introduce strict guidelines that no product may feature a character named "Fred", and maybe that would trigger an industry-wide change, but that's not what's happening here.

At the end of the day, OBS can do what they like, just as a McDonald's can kick you out for not wearing shoes. No one has a "right" to be platformed by OBS, just as no one has a "right" to eat a Filet-O-Fish sandwich. OBS has shown, in taking action against the product containing "ACAB", that they are at least making an effort to be even-handed about their content moderation.Are they going to follow their own guidelines to the letter? Doubtful. Most of it is probably CYA legelese, anyway.

Content creators would probably be better off worrying about the high cost of being on OBS, or tits numerous other restrictive practices, than they are some doofus's proxy culture war. Wanna guess which one is more likely to have an direct impact on you?

Finally, Scott Holden had this to say over on TBP's emerging thread about OBS' practices:

 

[Endless Flight]

They certainly have power but if their policies got too stringent it would only take a few large publishers on their platform just hinting pulling their product for them to change their tune.

 

[chuckdee]

They certainly have power but if their policies got too stringent it would only take a few large publishers on their platform just hinting pulling their product for them to change their tune.

And it's shown before in their agreements with certain publishers about bespoke storefronts that they're very willing to work with them. As an example, though Ulissies Spiel has their stuff on Drive Thru, they have their own bespoke storefront that feeds that also. I think this was in response to US looking into doing their own platform, just as they've done with Kickstarter.

 

[Bunch]

The thing is it's not that hard to make a store. It's harder to make a good one but making a store isn't that hard. Paizo has one and it's ready waiting in the wings should OBS develop a practice that causes people to jump. OBS is powerful though and I think SJGs finally getting on board with OBS gives you an idea of how significant.

 

[Endless Flight]

Overall, I like OBS’s site and it’s fairly user friendly. I don’t like their “new look” though. They need to scrap it and go back to the drawing board.

 

[Baulderstone]

Horse pucky. When the "boot of your car" has global marketing capability and instantaneous digital delivery anywhere in the world, then we'll talk. Literally nothing stopping anyone from buying ads, doing marketing, etc. This is so far from the CCA analogy, it will take a year for the light from the CCA analogy to reach it.

Is it the same as being on dtrpg? No. But, is it the same as being a comic in 1971 that can't get the CCA Seal? Nope. Not even close.

The point you are missing is that everyone now has marketing capability and instantaneous digital delivery, just like anyone could drive around to cons with a load of books in the '70s. Selling things is a competitive endeavor, and having your books on OBS is a huge leg up over the guy who isn't.

There is also the obstacle of people wanting all their books in one place. To go back to the guy selling books out of his car at convention, if he gets a buyers attention and they like his book, they can spontaneously pick it up and then walk over to buy something from the big guys. With PDFs, there are people who simply won't be bothered setting up additional accounts with other stores and insist on having all their PDFs in one virtual library.

And it's shown before in their agreements with certain publishers about bespoke storefronts that they're very willing to work with them. As an example, though Ulissies Spiel has their stuff on Drive Thru, they have their own bespoke storefront that feeds that also. I think this was in response to US looking into doing their own platform, just as they've done with Kickstarter.

And that's the thing. The big guys can cut special deals with OBS, but those deals don't extend to the little guys.

And to restate my point, I don't think OBS is overreaching in what it is doing, but that doesn't mean it isn't a concern for other people.

Finally, Scott Holden had this to say over on TBP's emerging thread about OBS' practices:
View attachment 47176

I'm not sure how selective enforcement of rules based on their personal business relationships is meant to be reassuring to small publishers.

 

[VisionStorm]

This is part of the policy that escaped my attention (not related to content but I think important). From what I can gather it has been part of the policy since 2020 at least----I haven't put up a game on OBS myself since 2020 so I believe this will be my first time in the fall putting up game with the following guideline:



Certainly would like to get other publishers who have released under this guideline sense of how tightly this is enforced and how narrowly it is defined. Also does it apply to both print and PDFs (there is lag between when my print books hit shelves and when my PDFs usually go up, not sure how easy those would be to coordinate). This also seems like it would generally make putting PDFs up on other platforms, and on OBS, a bit more of a pain.

Also on this bit:



This is about pricing so maybe my concern here doesn't apply. But if you censored content in a PDF to meet concerns expressed by OBS for their site, and effectively released two different versions of the game at the same price (one version for OBS that contains changes they requested, one elsewhere that is full original version), is that filed under unfair treatment (technically you are offering extra content at no cost).

I think this is very far reaching stuff, particularly when they already take 30% of what you make if you don't sell exclusively through them. Now on top of it you're not even allowed to price your content how you want outside their store and they want to have a say on how you sell your stuff elsewhere too, right down to your release schedule. You're not even allowed to sell stuff if your stuff isn't in their store before you try to sell it elsewhere or at the same day at the very least. That the want to exercise so much control over how you do business in general, even outside their own platform, seems absurd to me.

 

[BedrockBrendan]

Why are we comparing a completely nonsensical hypothetical to a real-world situation in which OBS is exercising its right to moderate content on the platform they own? Sure OBS could introduce strict guidelines that no product may feature a character named "Fred", and maybe that would trigger an industry-wide change, but that's not what's happening here.

The point of the hypothetical was to demonstrate how much influence OBS can have over content with guidelines and to show how significant they are in the hobby.

Obviously they have a legal right to do whatever they want on their platform. But publishers and customers also have a right to weigh in on whether they should use their platform to control content, and if so, where the lines should be, what responsibility they have given their position in the industry etc. I think these are all very reasonable concerns and opinions. And this coming in the wake of new guidelines for publishers (including publisher activities off of the OBS site) that have raised concerns for some.

At the end of the day, OBS can do what they like, just as a McDonald's can kick you out for not wearing shoes. No one has a "right" to be platformed by OBS, just as no one has a "right" to eat a Filet-O-Fish sandwich. OBS has shown, in taking action against the product containing "ACAB", that they are at least making an effort to be even-handed about their content moderation.Are they going to follow their own guidelines to the letter? Doubtful. Most of it is probably CYA legelese, anyway.

But they aren't McDonalds. They are OBS, they are effectively in a position to gatekeep what kind of RPGs are made. And publishers have every right to weigh in because we put out books up there and they take a considerable chunk of profit from us.

Content creators would probably be better off worrying about the high cost of being on OBS, or tits numerous other restrictive practices, than they are some doofus's proxy culture war. Wanna guess which one is more likely to have an direct impact on you?

It is not an either or. Publishers should be both concerned about the economics of being on OBS (which is a fair topic but another topic and not the topic of this thread), and how these things can impact their content. Also, I did raise concerns a few posts back about their other restrictions.

 

[BedrockBrendan]

They certainly have power but if their policies got too stringent it would only take a few large publishers on their platform just hinting pulling their product for them to change their tune.

True. My hypothetical was just to show that they do have power. Obviously, like anything else, it plays out in the real world if they enact a ridiculous policy. But even here this kind of helps reinforce my point: sure WOTC can influence the guidelines if they get out of hand or are stringently enforced. Small publishers can't. I think where this is likely to have most impact is in places where you have smaller publishers taking chances and doing interesting things.

 

[Gringnr]

The point of the hypothetical was to demonstrate how much influence OBS can have over content with guidelines and to show how significant they are in the hobby.

Obviously they have a legal right to do whatever they want on their platform. But publishers and customers also have a right to weigh in on whether they should use their platform to control content, and if so, where the lines should be, what responsibility they have given their position in the industry etc. I think these are all very reasonable concerns and opinions. And this coming in the wake of new guidelines for publishers (including publisher activities off of the OBS site) that have raised concerns for some.




But they aren't McDonalds. They are OBS, they are effectively in a position to gatekeep what kind of RPGs are made. And publishers have every right to weigh in because we put out books up there and they take a considerable chunk of profit from us.




It is not an either or. Publishers should be both concerned about the economics of being on OBS (which is a fair topic but another topic and not the topic of this thread), and how these things can impact their content. Also, I did raise concerns a few posts back about their other restrictions.

I guess we're just going to have to disagree on OBS being able to "gatekeep" the industry. I don't see it that way.

 

[BedrockBrendan]

I guess we're just going to have to disagree on OBS being able to "gatekeep" the industry. I don't see it that way.

Which is fine. You don't have to see it my way. I think it is very clear they are in that position, but it is a debatable thing for sure.

 

[Torque2100]

OBS has shown, in taking action against the product containing "ACAB", that they are at least making an effort to be even-handed about their content moderation. Are they going to follow their own guidelines to the letter? Doubtful. Most of it is probably CYA legelese, anyway.

I think this bears repeating. In an internet landscape where members of the in-group on other services can dox people, SWAT people and THREATEN TO KILL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS without consequence (Yes, this is happening. Look it up), while out-group members are banned for being slightly rude, OBS have been remarkably even-handed.

Don't be a doofus and try to turn OBS into proxies for your Kulturkampf nonsense and you won't have an issue.

I would think "don't publicly badmouth your business partners" would be common sense but apparently not.

 

[CRKrueger]

Welp, long story short Nolan is a rude jerk but wasn't accused of discriminating against women, minorities, disadvantaged groups etc.

No, this is what they're talking about.

 

[CRKrueger]

Horse pucky. When the "boot of your car" has global marketing capability and instantaneous digital delivery anywhere in the world, then we'll talk. Literally nothing stopping anyone from buying ads, doing marketing, etc. This is so far from the CCA analogy, it will take a year for the light from the CCA analogy to reach it.

Is it the same as being on dtrpg? No. But, is it the same as being a comic in 1971 that can't get the CCA Seal? Nope. Not even close.

The person in 1971 could have taken out a full page ad in the New York Times, Time and Life magazines, right? So the CCA was no big deal either.

 

[Baulderstone]

I think this is very far reaching stuff, particularly when they already take 30% of what you make if you don't sell exclusively through them.

This is the ugliest thing OBS does, in my opinion. As a former game store manager, I sympathize with them on a lot issues, but shutting people out from selling through other sources is both anti-producer and anti-consumer, whether you are OBS or Epic.

 

[robertsconley]

You still have to fund the book you are making. Art cost, writing, editing, etc. All that has to be justified by revenue on the other side of things. If there is effectively one player in town (and I would argue there is) for having viable sales of PDFs (and increasingly print), then what that company says about content guidelines is going to shape overall what the hobby looks. You might have a handful of exceptions, people who lucked out elsewhere, but overall it is a question of what kind of RPGs people want to see and to be made available.

Kickstarter and crowd funding in general has impacted how the sales trajectory works for RPG products. By providing an independent path for sales, promotion, and distribution.

What one would lose by running afoul of DriveThru with a Kickstarter heavy approach are the long tail sales. Obviously still not desirable but it not quite as dire as forced to open your own web store. Unless of course you are Judges Guild and fucked up the Kickstarter approach.

 

[Gringnr]

The person in 1971 could have taken out a full page ad in the New York Times, Time and Life magazines, right? So the CCA was no big deal either.

Yes, because having no recourse but to take out full page ads in multiple national and regional publications in 1971 is exactly the same as having unfettered access to the internet... in 2022. You're a genius. Which doesn't even touch the fact that I'm pretty sure no comic company took out full-page ads in any of these publications, in 1971, or... ever, CCA Seal or not.

Protip: if you have to resort to hypothericals or hyperbole (or both) to make your point, your point is probably garbage.

 

[Gringnr]

This is the ugliest thing OBS does, in my opinion. As a former game store manager, I sympathize with them on a lot issues, but shutting people out from selling through other sources is both anti-producer and anti-consumer, whether you are OBS or Epic.

This. So much this.

 

[VisionStorm]

I think this bears repeating. In an internet landscape where members of the in-group on other services can dox people, SWAT people and THREATEN TO KILL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS without consequence (Yes, this is happening. Look it up), while out-group members are banned for being slightly rude, OBS have been remarkably even-handed.

The fact that we have to point out worse stuff going on in our fucked up political landscape in order to make OBS look good by comparison doesn't exactly fill me with confidence.

Don't be a doofus and try to turn OBS into proxies for your Kulturkampf nonsense and you won't have an issue.

Unless you happen to be on the other side of this Kulturkampf nonsense, then you can do it and get other people's stuff taken down, if not permanently, then at least long enough to mess up their initial sales, which are crucial to a product's success.

I would think "don't publicly badmouth your business partners" would be common sense but apparently not.

Except that they aren't the publisher's business partners per se, but more like a platform providing a service, and people bad mouth services in public all the time. When was the last time someone got banned from air travel because they bad mouthed an airline in social media for messing up their luggage? And how are service providers supposed to change if we're not allowed to criticize their services or service related policies?

Grim and Raggi already covered this in their videos, but this is a huge platform pushing their weight on small publishers who might not be able to effectively redress their grievances any other way. Bitching in social media works. That's sometimes the only way to get big corporations to address your concerns when they're sidelining you. Hell, that's how products started getting flagged and pulled (either permanently, or long enough to damage their sales) in the first place--bitching in social media. Only now one group is allowed to do that, and the other one is the only one getting punished, even more severely than they already were.

 

[Gringnr]

Most of the anti-OBS arguments I'm seeing wrt to content moderation boil down to "It's inconvenient for me to find alternate methods of advertising, sales and distribution, so I expect OBS to provide me with unconditional access to their platform and resources because reasons".

 

[BedrockBrendan]

Kickstarter and crowd funding in general has impacted how the sales trajectory works for RPG products. By providing an independent path for sales, promotion, and distribution.

What one would lose by running afoul of DriveThru with a Kickstarter heavy approach are the long tail sales. Obviously still not desirable but it not quite as dire as forced to open your own web store. Unless of course you are Judges Guild and fucked up the Kickstarter approach.

You do have kickstarter which is true, but that still requires reach to get to the level of investment you need, and it is a whole other way of making a game because you are essentially bringing in investors (they don't take a cut of the profits obviously, the arrangement is made on the front end, but it does mean you are beholden to backers, which I think one can argue has the potential to make you less of an independent creator). Still though, I don't think it is the norm yet. I haven't done a kickstarter, I don't think I ever would because I don't really want to work with backers in mind (and I've seen a lot of kickstarters that went sideways). I still think OBS occupies such a significant portion of the hobby, even with kickstarter, most publishers are going to shape their content to fit any guidelines that OBS advances.

 

[VisionStorm]

Most of the anti-OBS counterarguments I'm seeing amount to "won't somebody think of the right of corporate giants who already take 30% off the sales from products they didn't produce or even have to provide physical storage space for to set one-sided terms for how other people do business with them or even outside their platform".