Discord as a DriveThruRPG Alternative?

[Bunch]

I am no expert either. My understanding is that is one way to become a monopoly or maintain their monopoly position and there are many types of monopolies. There is also differences between how say the US government defines monopolies, other governments define them and how an economist might talk about monopolies. For example I know I have read economists who consider Amazon a monopoly or will say something like they are engaging in anti-competitive behavior. I think on OBS, there is a discussion to be had, but I do get the sense that many publishers would regard them as a monopoly (and many others would consider them to be at least moving in that direction). From my point of view OBS is effectively one in the sense that there isn't really any competition when it comes to selling PDFs because they hold such a dominant position, and that position has an enormous impact on what is sold in the hobby, including what prices people charge. Look at how prices when they altered their top ten algorithm to base ranking on sales amount instead of numbers sold: I haven't crunched the numbers but it does seem like we have seen prices of PDFs go up since then).

One thing I will say is it seems to me discussions about whether OBS is a monopoly or whether its policies are impacting what kind of RPGs people are able to make (and if that is having any kind of censorious effect) often get couched and framed in ways that are political to the RPG hobby (i.e. if you support this proxy political in the hobby, you support OBS, if you support this other proxy political discussion in the hobby you are skeptical of their position). But I think that is misguided as these are concerns that go beyond any of that stuff and will have lots of unintended consequences down the road for the hobby. And I am not attacking OBS. I like the people who run it, and I make decent revenue there. But I also do feel like they have a lot of influence over content simply due to their position in the industry (look if OBS said publicly today, we aren't selling any books that feature long swords because long swords are bad, you can bet my PDFs probably wouldn't have long swords if I wanted to stay in business). I know that is a ridiculous example but I think it does make the point. That kind of statement wouldn't matter and would be entirely a matter of a businesses personal views on long swords were there a healthy landscape of real competition. But because there isn't it means them saying that becomes more than just them running the company the way they feel comfortable and has an impact on all games treatment of long swords.

So my counter would be that if OBS were a true monopoly they could ignore things like boycotts and calls for revolt against OBS because there would be no alternative. Publishers are being given market feedback from the community via OBS about what some consumers want.
Whether that group is reflective of society as a whole or not I think is definitely up for debate. If OBS were a true monopoly with the control of supply they could simply say "You don't like what we sell. Suck eggs because you have no choice." But they (consumers and publishers) do have a choice. The concentration of power is largely still on the consumer side. They can boycott as obviously RPGs are not a need. How long would consumers do it? Dunno. Personally I wish OBS had stayed with an agnostic policy given their strong market dominance but I think they felt threatened. That's the thing, even if OBS is a monopoly it's an extremely fragile one that keeps it from exerting strong pricing power. \

I'm curious BedrockBrendan. Do you know if you have to sign exclusive distribution with OBS for all products or on a product by product basis? Can you run your questionable products under the same name but only have those maybe infracting ones distributed non exclusively?

 

[T. Foster]

Exclusivity on OBS is by publisher, not by product. (But note that exclusivity applies only to pdf - even exclusive publishers can sell print copies anywhere).

 

[Bunch]

If there isn’t enough money for RPGNow and DTRPG to co-exist in the market then DTRPG is a monopoly.

I dont agree and here's why. Any day WotC wants it can push its content to in house or another supplier and OBS loses I suspect 25%-45% of it's revenue. I make that guess (and it's a guess) based on a quote that when WotC dropped PDF's last time OBS claimed WotC counted for less than 50% of their revenue. That was more than a decade ago though. Already all Pathfinder sales are excluded from OBS which I have no idea if that is 1% or 5% of all PDF dollar sales. The strongest case I can say that OBS is a monopoly is that Steve Jackson Games did seem to finally feel compelled to sell there.

 

[Bunch]

Exclusivity on OBS is by publisher, not by product. (But note that exclusivity applies only to pdf - even exclusive publishers can sell print copies anywhere).

So for questionable products it would be possible to incorporate as a separate company and not be exclusive?

 

[chuckdee]

You would if you were a Site regular.

Big Geek Emporium

Find the best selection of Dungeons and Dragons and tabletop role playing games products on our platform. Browse our extensive range of PDF files, Print On Demand, and physical products, and discover new adventures today. Plus, vendors can join our community and sell their own RPG products...

biggeekemporium.com

I sort of wish I didn't know anything about it now...

 

[chuckdee]

Not to mention killed off Astral Tabletop, one of Roll20's competitors.

That happened before they merged with Roll20. What really happened is that OBS tried a strategic partnership with Astral, then Astral started failing, and OBS bought it to try to roll their own. Astral tanked, and they looked in other waters.

 

[ffilz]

Exclusivity on OBS is by publisher, not by product. (But note that exclusivity applies only to pdf - even exclusive publishers can sell print copies anywhere).

How does that exclusivity work? Chaosium sells their PDFs both on OBS and on their own web site. Marc Miller sells his PDFs multiple ways too.

 

[chuckdee]

If there isn’t enough money for RPGNow and DTRPG to co-exist in the market then DTRPG is a monopoly.

There was enough money, and they existed side by side- until DTRPG bought them out. There's room for another. They just have to give a compelling reason to use them. And DTRPG leaves a big enough hole that someone very well could.

 

[chuckdee]

How does that exclusivity work? Chaosium sells their PDFs both on OBS and on their own web site. Marc Miller sells his PDFs multiple ways too.

You pay DTRPG a lower percentage if you're exclusive. You don't have to be exclusive, and I'd never sell there as exclusive. It's short-sighted.

 

[Bunch]

There was enough money, and they existed side by side- until DTRPG bought them out. There's room for another. They just have to give a compelling reason to use them. And DTRPG leaves a big enough hole that someone very well could.

right but when they were both smaller they also left a lot more room for a 3rd party to also get in and possibly kill either of them.

 

[BedrockBrendan]

So my counter would be that if OBS were a true monopoly they could ignore things like boycotts and calls for revolt against OBS because there would be no alternative. Publishers are being given market feedback from the community via OBS about what some consumers want.
Whether that group is reflective of society as a whole or not I think is definitely up for debate. If OBS were a true monopoly with the control of supply they could simply say "You don't like what we sell. Suck eggs because you have no choice." But they (consumers and publishers) do have a choice. The concentration of power is largely still on the consumer side. They can boycott as obviously RPGs are not a need. How long would consumers do it? Dunno. Personally I wish OBS had stayed with an agnostic policy given their strong market dominance but I think they felt threatened. That's the thing, even if OBS is a monopoly it's an extremely fragile one that keeps it from exerting strong pricing power. \

I would argue that what this amounts to is one company being able to make a decision that affects what is available for consumers to buy. It isn't like you have customers simply voting with their dollar. It is more like you have contingents of customers who can band together and leverage the outsized control of the market that OBS has. I also think it is very easy for a small but dedicated group of consumers to affect what OBS allows. That said, I think overall OBS presently has done a good job managing things. And I don't think their policy is particularly unreasonable. But I do think their policy and their position leads to people censoring their own content and that wouldn't happen if there was more viable competition. And I think there are serious unintended consequences that can emerge down the road with this as their policies change, as new people come into positions of power at OBS, etc

I'm curious BedrockBrendan. Do you know if you have to sign exclusive distribution with OBS for all products or on a product by product basis?

I don't do an exclusive agreement with OBS so I can't recall exactly what the arrangement is (I believe it is for all your products, and if you go exclusive you get a higher percentage, but I could be wrong).

Can you run your questionable products under the same name but only have those maybe infracting ones distributed non exclusively?

I haven't had anything taken down. But I have self censored in order to remain within the guidelines (and nothing I was censoring was anything people would say is bad or objectionable but given the wording of the policies you have to be very careful now). This was made more pronounced with the changes to the report feature (where the product gets automatically removed if it is reported for review-----which you definitely don't want to happen if you are launching a new book). It will go back up once it goes through review of course (unless it doesn't pass through the review process).

Since I am non-exclusive, if that were to happen, I could very well put the PDF up elsewhere, but the point is, it isn't going to sell elsewhere. I would make pennies on other platforms. And given that fact, and given how much of an investment it is to make an RPG, I have to consider the OBS policy when I am writing and designing content. Which, at least in my case, but I am sure, many, many other publishers as well, means OBS's position in the industry, shapes what content is produced. Theoretically you would make an RPG book and put it up elsewhere to die on the vine but there isn't much point because it just isn't viable.

Now there are exceptions. WOTC can do what it wants, they will reach an audience no matter what. Same for some other companies. And companies that rely on kickstarter have a whole other set up and approach.

 

[Endless Flight]

I dont agree and here's why. Any day WotC wants it can push its content to in house or another supplier and OBS loses I suspect 25%-45% of it's revenue. I make that guess (and it's a guess) based on a quote that when WotC dropped PDF's last time OBS claimed WotC counted for less than 50% of their revenue. That was more than a decade ago though. Already all Pathfinder sales are excluded from OBS which I have no idea if that is 1% or 5% of all PDF dollar sales. The strongest case I can say that OBS is a monopoly is that Steve Jackson Games did seem to finally feel compelled to sell there.

You think 4e and older editions account for a lot of their revenue?

 

[Bunch]

You think 4e and older editions account for a lot of their revenue?

DMs Guild and possibly older pdfs. I get the sense that the sales tail is quite long and it wouldnt be hard for older D&D stuff to outsell quite a few newer things.

 

[BedrockBrendan]

How does that exclusivity work? Chaosium sells their PDFs both on OBS and on their own web site. Marc Miller sells his PDFs multiple ways too.

I would actually have to open my account and check the numbers but it is a difference of percentage points in terms of how much goes to OBS. If you do an exlclusive agreement you get more money. I would make more money if I did an exclusive agreement. But I worry about their position in the market so I choose to not do an exclusive.

Also I don't sell any print books on OBS. I prefer to do that outside OBS. One thing I have noticed though is people who don't see your print stuff there, assume you are PDF only. OBS has an enormous affect on peoples perception of what games exist and in what formats. That does have some definite advantages. There is one place where you put up your books and the day it comes out, everyone and their brother seem them. But that advantage is also what makes it a disadvantage for the hobby because it means OBS has this massive presence and importance, where most RPG companies can't survive if they are not on it.

 

[T. Foster]

How does that exclusivity work? Chaosium sells their PDFs both on OBS and on their own web site. Marc Miller sells his PDFs multiple ways too.

That’s because neither of them are exclusive to OBS. Meaning OBS takes a 35% cut of their sales through the site, vs 30% for exclusive publishers.

 

[BedrockBrendan]

Can you run your questionable products .....

I just want to emphasize (and not saying you were suggesting anything other than this) that my point wasn't about truly questionable or objectionable content or books (that is another discussion which is just as important and related but not what I had in mind here). I was talking about things publishers having to mind the precise wording of the policy (which on a surface reading has a lot of things a lot of people might agree are bad---regardless of how they feel about whether people ought to be able to make or not make that stuff). And that sweeps up a lot of content that isn't going to be be actually objectionable when you are evaluating your own products and trying to make sure you don't fall out of line with the guidelines. There is a "are they going to understand the intent of what I am doing here" that really can affect the content of the books. I think especially so since the reporting feature was made to have a more immediate result (prior to that it didn't seem as catastrophic because the process was slower and arguably fairer to the publisher).

 

[BedrockBrendan]

Ok. I mean businesses grow. I'm guessing the two companies looked at each other and said "I don't know if I can outgrow you before you outgrow me but I know there isn't enough money for three of us to exist. Let's merge to survive."

Same with Roll20 and Astral. I doubt there is a large enough market to support two strictly browser based VTTs.

I don't know the details of the merger so I can't speculate on that. But I do know you used to have two viable options and it became one. And now OBS is expanding into new terrain as well. To me I think it can be likened, though on a much, much smaller scale (though to us an important one because it is our hobby), to Amazon becoming the go to online store (and yes of course, Ebay still exists) and then expanding into things like whole foods. Some people like amazon. It definitely has a lot of advantages and brings convenience. Others are a lot more concerns about their power in the market place.

 

[Endless Flight]

DMs Guild and possibly older pdfs. I get the sense that the sales tail is quite long and it wouldnt be hard for older D&D stuff to outsell quite a few newer things.

There was quite a long time where Wizards pulled their products from DTRPG and they seemed to do fairly well without them.

 

[Bunch]

I completely get the concern that if they enforce their policies with the most expansive interpretation then you really have to worry. I guess I would like to know how often they over enforce it. Is this like small town cops trying to hit revenue targets or large city cops only hitting highly excessive speeders? Thats pretty much the same if its a 50% share of the market or 90%

 

[Bunch]

There was quite a long time where Wizards pulled their products from DTRPG and they seemed to do fairly well without them.

They lost "Less than 50%" of their revenue per their answer when asked back then.

 

[Endless Flight]

They lost "Less than 50%" of their revenue per their answer when asked back then.

That’s a non-answer if I ever heard one.

 

[Bunch]

That’s a non-answer if I ever heard one.

Just for clarification I miss read the quote. The actual quote is closer to your statement of a non statement. The quote is :

Sean Patrick Fannon, RPG Marketing, Communications, and Publisher Services Manager for OneBookShelf, "acknowledged that the move was a negative for PDF sales, he said that Wizards of the Coast was 'not even close' to half the company’s sales".

 

[sharps54]

I completely get the concern that if they enforce their policies with the most expansive interpretation then you really have to worry. I guess I would like to know how often they over enforce it. Is this like small town cops trying to hit revenue targets or large city cops only hitting highly excessive speeders? Thats pretty much the same if its a 50% share of the market or 90%

The issue is even if they don’t aggressively enforce it now they could in the future.

 

[Baulderstone]

Offering companies incentives to only make their product available on their platform is an attempt to limit consumer choice. We can argue back and forth about the definition of monopoly, but whether they are or not, OBS is definitely engaging in anti-consumer behavior.

 

[Yeti Spaghetti]

Also I don't sell any print books on OBS. I prefer to do that outside OBS. One thing I have noticed though is people who don't see your print stuff there, assume you are PDF only. OBS has an enormous affect on peoples perception of what games exist and in what formats. That does have some definite advantages. There is one place where you put up your books and the day it comes out, everyone and their brother seem them. But that advantage is also what makes it a disadvantage for the hobby because it means OBS has this massive presence and importance, where most RPG companies can't survive if they are not on it

I'll second this. I only sell PDFs on DTRPG and I handle print independently. Yet customers are so used to POD that I've had challenges breaking free and getting folks to contact me directly for print purchases. No matter what I do, some will apparently assume that if it's not on the site, then it doesn't exist. It's the "one stop shop" nature of DTRPG that shapes what indie developers can and cannot reasonably accomplish.

 

[Tommy Brownell]

Itch.io’s interface is nowhere near as good as DTRPG.

The content being largely quirky niche games that probably only have a player base in the tens and not hundreds doesn’t help.

 

[Tommy Brownell]

I'll second this. I only sell PDFs on DTRPG and I handle print independently. Yet customers are so used to POD that I've had challenges breaking free and getting folks to contact me directly for print purchases. No matter what I do, some will apparently assume that if it's not on the site, then it doesn't exist. It's the "one stop shop" nature of DTRPG that shapes what indie developers can and cannot reasonably accomplish.

I have seen that a lot: “POD when?” “Uh, it’s in print right now.”

 

[Yeti Spaghetti]

I have seen that a lot: “POD when?” “Uh, it’s in print right now.”

Yep. I still respond to those folks in the comments, though.

 

[Baulderstone]

I dont agree and here's why. Any day WotC wants it can push its content to in house or another supplier and OBS loses I suspect 25%-45% of it's revenue. I make that guess (and it's a guess) based on a quote that when WotC dropped PDF's last time OBS claimed WotC counted for less than 50% of their revenue. That was more than a decade ago though. Already all Pathfinder sales are excluded from OBS which I have no idea if that is 1% or 5% of all PDF dollar sales. The strongest case I can say that OBS is a monopoly is that Steve Jackson Games did seem to finally feel compelled to sell there.

Mentioning the power that WotC has just underlines the lack of comparable negotiating power that the average RPG publisher has in relation to OBS. Given the microscopic size of the average game publisher, I think this is inevitable to some degree, but it needs to be remembered. When I comes to any of the publishers that post at the Pub, OBS can turn of their business like a lightbulb if they choose.

I have seen that a lot: “POD when?” “Uh, it’s in print right now.”

Yep. This is a real problem.

 

[robertsconley]

How does that exclusivity work? Chaosium sells their PDFs both on OBS and on their own web site. Marc Miller sells his PDFs multiple ways too.

Exclusivity is an option that you select when you sign up as a publisher.

 

[Lunar Ronin]

Offering companies incentives to only make their product available on their platform is an attempt to limit consumer choice. We can argue back and forth about the definition of monopoly, but whether they are or not, OBS is definitely engaging in anti-consumer behavior.

Yep. It's exactly like Amazon Kindle ebooks and Audible audiobooks. Sure, there's Barnes & Noble Nook, ebooks.com, Google Play Books, Kobo, and Lulu, but something like 90% of all ebook sales in the United States are via Amazon Kindle, (no exaggeration, it may even be higher than that). Plus, Amazon offers incentives to authors to make their ebooks and audiobooks only available on Amazon and/or Audible. As a result, many, many ebooks and audiobooks are only available on Amazon and/or Audible. If you use an ereader other than Kindle, your ebook and audiobook options are limited. That's a defacto monopoly.

 

[Bunch]

It sounds like what is needed is a guild of independent publishers to increase the effective size of those publishers for negotiating purposes.

From a consumer standpoint the case against OBS looks pretty weak to me. Consumers seem to be getting low prices, consolidated library and better access to a wide variety of publishers.

I'm hearing publishers want more guaranteed clarify around objectionable material so something isn't turned off during a launch and kill sales.

It doesn't sound like OBS is actually doing anything bad but the fear they might is causing concern and self censorship.

BedrockBrendan you seem to me to be doing the thing more publishers need to do if they object to OBS's market size, which is go non exclusive. I'm curious if a large group of indies could be convinced to go non exclusive one month a year and push to increase the visibility of another platform.

 

[BedrockBrendan]

It sounds like what is needed is a guild of independent publishers to increase the effective size of those publishers for negotiating purposes.

From a consumer standpoint the case against OBS looks pretty weak to me.

Here is a thought experiment to consider if you think things are solid on the consumer side and to see how much power a platform like OBS has. Imagine the person you least trust, you disagree with the most, the person is most hostile to the kinds of games you like and the style of play you enjoy, becomes the new CEO of Onebookshelf tomorrow. If you feel that wouldn't have any impact on accessibility, availability of book you enjoy, it wouldn't harm creatives you are a fan of, and you would be satisfied as a customer, then maybe for you, the present situation is fine. Like I said, up to this point they have been pretty good, and I don't know of a single person who has any complaints against Steve Wieck. Everyone always seems to comment he is a nice guy and they haven't had a problem with him-----all my interactions with him, even when I have been frustrated with something at OBS, have been pleasant and productive. But I think all this hinges on Steve Wieck being the one in charge. And I also feel that the changes to the report feature make that a little less relevant because now all it takes is a complaint for a publisher to have their product roll out torpedoed

Consumers seem to be getting low prices, consolidated library and better access to a wide variety of publishers.

I don't know that the prices are as good as they could be, but I do agree with have wide access to publishers and wide access to a backlog of material. So don't get me wrong here, I am not saying there is something nefarious about Onebook, and I am not saying there isn't good. I am just saying I think they are in a monopoly position in the hobby and their outsized influence is not good long term for publishers or consumers (because content is being shaped by their policies, and whether that bothers you pivots on whether the person in charge is enforcing those policies to your liking as a reader and gamer).

On the price front, I do think more competition would lower prices. If there were more platform competition, we would likely see better rates being offered to publishers and they could lower prices. If the top ten list on OBS wasn't essential for success (that is basically free advertising and once you get on it, it is much easier for a book to stay afloat), because other platforms had other lists with different algorithms, then prices, IMO, would be lower (because the present algorithm is based on the amount of money a PDF makes, not copies sold, which incentivizes companies to raise their cover price if they want to be on the top ten list). In my own case, I had a line of 1 dollar PDFs and I had to stop making that line because once they changed the algorithm it wasn't profitable for me to do any more (and my other option was to raise prices of course). I am quite certain publishers pay close attention to that top ten list and know they won't get on it if they charge too little (if they charge too much that too can deter sales so it is a delicate balance, but the point being before it didn't matter if a book was 50 cents or 80 dollars, a sale was sale as far as the top ten list was concerned).

.

BedrockBrendan you seem to me to be doing the thing more publishers need to do if they object to OBS's market size, which is go non exclusive. I'm curious if a large group of indies could be convinced to go non exclusive one month a year and push to increase the visibility of another platform.

This doesn't help. I am non exclusive on principle. But I have to be on OBS to make money. So I can put my book up on other platforms all day long, and I do, but those platforms are not viable alternatives in terms of sales and visibility because OBS is about as dominant in the RPG world as Amazon is in the online shopping world.

 

[Bunch]

Most of your argument comes down to "if". I agree that "if" is a concern but it's mitigated by the existence of minor players. If they do the things your concerned about do you think they can hold market dominance? I mean block too many things, raise prices too much and people leave. The cost to switch for consumers just isn't too high other than habit and convenience. So that if is mostly theoretical not real. OBS isn't some technical powerhouse as far as I can tell. Their storefront has never wowed me so it's really a testament to how bad their competition has been. Itch.io has one of the worst UI setups since Myspace.

 

[Ladybird]

The issue is even if they don’t aggressively enforce it now they could in the future.

I think this is a reasonable concern, but every store should trip this risk.

That said, I'd actually trust DTRPG more than the ideologically-driven sites. DTRPG are only concerned about the money, rather than about having An Agenda and Sticking It To Their Enemies. Capitalism keeps them honest.

 

[chuckdee]

DMs Guild and possibly older pdfs. I get the sense that the sales tail is quite long and it wouldnt be hard for older D&D stuff to outsell quite a few newer things.

DMs Guild is a very large percentage of OBSs profits. There are whole cottage industries built around DM's guild and the appeal of D&D as a brand/product.

 

[chuckdee]

Yep. It's exactly like Amazon Kindle ebooks and Audible audiobooks. Sure, there's Barnes & Noble Nook, ebooks.com, Google Play Books, Kobo, and Lulu, but something like 90% of all ebook sales in the United States are via Amazon Kindle, (no exaggeration, it may even be higher than that). Plus, Amazon offers incentives to authors to make their ebooks and audiobooks only available on Amazon and/or Audible. As a result, many, many ebooks and audiobooks are only available on Amazon and/or Audible. If you use an ereader other than Kindle, your ebook and audiobook options are limited. That's a defacto monopoly.

I've never had it happen in reality that when I wanted something on Nook I couldn't get it on Nook. Sure, there's theoretically a lot on Amazon that you can't get elsewhere, but in all honesty, it suffers from the same problem as DTRPG - most of that content is dross. The larger publishers are very aware of Amazon and its practices, and will never go exclusive with them or allow them that influence in the marketplace.

And this goes back to what Bunch was suggesting - DTRPG could be held in check by a guild of publishers in the RPG arena, just as there is in traditional publishing.

 

[chuckdee]

I'll second this. I only sell PDFs on DTRPG and I handle print independently. Yet customers are so used to POD that I've had challenges breaking free and getting folks to contact me directly for print purchases. No matter what I do, some will apparently assume that if it's not on the site, then it doesn't exist. It's the "one stop shop" nature of DTRPG that shapes what indie developers can and cannot reasonably accomplish.

Can you not say it in your description? I've seen some do that- even link off the site for print purposes.

 

[chuckdee]

Offering companies incentives to only make their product available on their platform is an attempt to limit consumer choice. We can argue back and forth about the definition of monopoly, but whether they are or not, OBS is definitely engaging in anti-consumer behavior.

But this isn't exclusive to OBS. We see it with Amazon, Epic, Playstation, XBox, Nintendo... it's a standard practice that hasn't been challenged. And any unchallenged practice is going to be used by those that want to get ahead/get a foothold.

 

[Endless Flight]

I mean block too many things, raise prices too much and people leave.

I see you’ve never been a Comcast customer.