Discord as a DriveThruRPG Alternative?

[Fenris-77]

I see you’ve never been a Comcast customer.

 

[T. Foster]

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

IIRC OBS does not allow external third-party links in product description pages.

 

[Baulderstone]

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.

Which only provides more examples of why this is a bad thing.

 

[AsenRG]

Revolut, the European bank? Just making sure I understand.

Revolut, the app...and yes, it's European, AFAIK. But it has multiple features it offers for free, that are usually paid, and it takes 0% off private customers.

If OBS isn't a monopoly already (and I suggest that it very much effectively is), what you're suggesting is how we get monopolies. By insisting that a new marketplace would have to interface with your DriveThru library and provide your copy there, you're effectively giving OBS a stranglehold on the tabletop RPG market. That's not a good thing for consumers in the longrun. See: Amazon.

And you're right here, on both accounts: OBS is very much a monopoly, and that's not a good thing for consumers in the long run.
Amazon already has at least one suit against them, which mentions "antitrust laws and artificially raising prices".

Amazon illegally raises prices, D.C. Attorney General says in antitrust suit

Amazon’s online retail monopoly violates antitrust law and leaves consumers paying artificially high prices, according to a lawsuit filed by Washington DC’s attorney general on Tuesday. Vendors wh…

nypost.com

Also, those that are suggesting that monopolies aren't impacted by public campaigns, are out of their minds. We had mandated monopolies here in some sectors (heating, for example). The societies providing them were very careful not to get a public campaign going against them. All GMs should ask themselves why.

IIRC OBS does not allow external third-party links in product description pages.

That is correct, I've checked for unrelated reasons.

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

Yes.
All of you, narrative game fans, imagine someone like Jennifer's more vocal fans was the head of OBS...and the rest of us can just imagine Ron Edwards in his prime!

Nope, not a good idea to have monopolies.

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.

No, it's not.
You don't even need the market share OBS has to be a monopoly. 50% and more is plenty cause for concern. I can guarantee you they've got way, way more.

The cost to switch for consumers just isn't too high other than habit and convenience.

Habit and convenience shouldn't be underestimated.
And then we have the real issue - who is going to tell them what to switch to? That they need to switch to something at all?

You're seriously underestimating the power of monopolies, man...

Now, I get it - the unified library is a very useful thing for my purchasing habits as well.
But I also know that the de facto power of veto that OBS is holding isn't a good thing for the kind of games I prefer. So I'm willing to live with some inconveniences, if a real competitor appears.

 

[chuckdee]

Which only provides more examples of why this is a bad thing.

It's funny because it's the basis of why Sony is trying to block the purchase of ATVI by MSFT. But in their emails they said they're just doing it to drive the prices up- there's no way that MSFT will make the ATVI franchises Xbox only because of the loss of sales.

 

[chuckdee]

IIRC OBS does not allow external third-party links in product description pages.

I stand corrected - it wasn't links, it was text. It says that the product is available in print on their site or Lulu. And their site is linked from the product page.

 

[Bunch]

I see you’ve never been a Comcast customer.

Haha that is the case of a true government monopoly. Comcast sucks but competition from wireless and fiber are making them more responsive. my experience with Comcast in 2010 and as a customer in 2023 are light years apart.

 

[Endless Flight]

Haha that is the case of a true government monopoly. Comcast sucks but competition from wireless and fiber are making them more responsive. my experience with Comcast in 2010 and as a customer in 2023 are light years apart.

But technically they aren’t a monopoly, just like technically OBS isn’t. But they really are. We have an alternative to Comcast in our area, but they don’t have the same infrastructure so they can’t really compete on an equal footing.

 

[Bunch]

But technically they aren’t a monopoly, just like technically OBS isn’t. But they really are. We have an alternative to Comcast in our area, but they don’t have the same infrastructure so they can’t really compete on an equal footing.

Nope they actually are a monopoly on cable. They negotiate with governments to have exclusive rights to lay cable lines to provide tv and internet. They do that because if you don't give them exclusive rights they do what the telcos do with fiber and only run it to a few people in clusers. Comcast has to deliver to everyone in a city who wants it in exchange for the monopoly rights.

 

[BedrockBrendan]

IIRC OBS does not allow external third-party links in product description pages.

And it is their right to do, but this is definitely something that makes it hard to let people know your print material exists if you only have PDFs up on the site

 

[Bunch]

A few basics if we're going to have a discussion because I'm just bored of debating what a monopoly is:

Monopoly :

• A monopoly is a market structure that consists of only one seller or producer.
• A monopoly limits available substitutes for its product and creates barriers for competitors to enter the marketplace.

Monopsony :

• A monopsony refers to a market dominated by a single buyer.
• In a monopsony, a single buyer generally has a controlling advantage that drives its consumption price levels down.
• A monopsony can arise due to geographical constraints, government regulation, or unique consumer demands.
• Monopsonies commonly experience low prices from wholesalers and an advantage in paid wages.
• Whereas a monopoly results in only one seller of a good that creates upward pricing pressure, a monopsony is a market condition with only one buyer who may be able to cause downward pricing pressure.

See the comment above about Comcast. They are the only seller of Cable services in many areas because they negotiated monopoly rights to sell in exchange for the guarantee they will sell to all customers in a region not just the highly profitable ones.

 

[Endless Flight]

So you don’t think Amazon is a monopoly because of technicalities?

 

[BedrockBrendan]

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.

To be clear, I think an ideological site would be completely misguided (even one dedicated to something that I suppose like more expansive free expression-----because it is going to become about the politics, not great content). But I don't think you can just trust capitalism to make things good. The profit motive leads to just as much good as bad. It certainly hasn't enabled more competition in this case, and in the case of Amazon. I am pretty left and pretty liberal, but I do support the free market and think it is the best system so far. However unfettered capitalism is a problem, you have to have checks and balances and some mixed economy for it to work. And you do need to control things like monopolies and companies becoming so dominant there aren't any real alternatives. You won't find me advocating for a marxist revolution, but you also won't find me trusting capitalism to naturally work things out like companies being dishonest or using their position in the market to stifle competition and control content.

 

[Endless Flight]

Also, it shouldn’t be a requirement for these online sellers to unify their libraries. That’s up to the customer to keep all their usernames and passwords straight.

 

[BedrockBrendan]

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

It also isn't an if. They changed the reporting policy so that things come down right away if someone reports them. So even if OBS ultimately rules your product is fine, you lose all that time and momentum after launch to succeed (and no one wants to have their book come down two days after its released because someone hits a report button). Then it is in review until they make a decision (which is its own issue). In order to avoid having this problem, companies need to take a more expansive view of the content policy guidelines to protect themselves. So the effect in my opinion is content is already being adjusted and self censored on the publishing end in order to avert this sort of issue.

Also "if" matters here. A sudden change of leadership could be massive, and if they continue to have this market position, it means you effectively have this ticking time bomb until that sort of change develops (and then you will have a massive shake up in the hobby). And if that were to occur, I am not confident competition would be able to surface. Look Amazon has all kinds of lousy anticompetitive anti consumer behavior, but no one shifts to other platforms because they are simply too big and too convenient. Most people are not going to get activist with their spending in that way. Also the argument people seem to be making is if OBS is a monopoly or if it is an effective monopoly, its a benevolent monopoly so its fine. I just don't buy that reasoning. Again, nothing against OBS in particular. I think they have done a good job overall. But I don't think this is a healthy market landscape for the hobby. I think we would be better off if there were more competition, and given OBS power and position I think it has a responsibility to the hobby to not abuse that position and to make sure things like its content policy guidelines are having minimal impact on practices like self censorship.

 

[Bunch]

So you don’t think Amazon is a monopoly because of technicalities?

No I think it isnt a monopoly because of Target, Walmart, and a million other retailers.

Dominant player is not a monopoly. It just isnt. It can be an issue but there's a question of if a competitor can knock them out if they screw up or they simply can't get in. If Amazon says fuck it I'm going to raise prices 30% will consumers stay? Do they have options? Yes they do. That's what shows you it's not a monopoly.

Most of the concerns here are about these guys being Monopsony's. That's the producer side of the equation. We all buy deodorant not in boxes anymore because Walmart told the suppliers we wont buy from you if you don't change your packaging to get rid of the box. They had such a dominance on purchasing that suppliers had to change packaging to comply. BedrockBrendan is concerned about the power of a single buyer in OBS. If he doesn't wholesale to them under their conditions he is saying he effectively cant sell.

 

[Baulderstone]

I feel the arguments over whether OBS is a monopoly are a distraction from the real concerns about OBS.

 

[chuckdee]

So you don’t think Amazon is a monopoly because of technicalities?

It's not technicalities. If you're going to call something a Monopoly, you have to go by standard definitions of the word.

 

[Baulderstone]

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.

Sadly, one of their enemies is a competitive market that would benefit consumers.

 

[chuckdee]

I feel the arguments over whether OBS is a monopoly are a distraction from the real concerns about OBS.

Agreed. People want it to be termed a monopoly because that puts it in a set definition of what is good and what is bad. Anti-consumer practices and outright ignoring the consumer in favor of stretching margins can be done by any company, not just a monopoly.

 

[chuckdee]

Sadly, one of their enemies is a competitive market that would benefit consumers.

I think that's the same that could be said of any company that is dominant in any market. Power is not something that is relinquished easily, especially when paired with profit.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

And you're right here, on both accounts: OBS is very much a monopoly, and that's not a good thing for consumers in the long run.
Amazon already has at least one suit against them, which mentions "antitrust laws and artificially raising prices".

Amazon illegally raises prices, D.C. Attorney General says in antitrust suit

Amazon’s online retail monopoly violates antitrust law and leaves consumers paying artificially high prices, according to a lawsuit filed by Washington DC’s attorney general on Tuesday. Vendors wh…

nypost.com

Something Amazon does, that I find very devious and distasteful, is individual pricing. Basically, Amazon keeps tabs on what you're willing to pay for some thing and when sets the prices for similar things accordingly. Try going on Amazon with a fully anonymous browser like Tor, to see it for yourself.

 

[Acmegamer]

To be clear, I think an ideological site would be completely misguided (even one dedicated to something that I suppose like more expansive free expression-----because it is going to become about the politics, not great content). But I don't think you can just trust capitalism to make things good. The profit motive leads to just as much good as bad. It certainly hasn't enabled more competition in this case, and in the case of Amazon. I am pretty left and pretty liberal, but I do support the free market and think it is the best system so far. However unfettered capitalism is a problem, you have to have checks and balances and some mixed economy for it to work. And you do need to control things like monopolies and companies becoming so dominant there aren't any real alternatives. You won't find me advocating for a marxist revolution, but you also won't find me trusting capitalism to naturally work things out like companies being dishonest or using their position in the market to stifle competition and control content.

This is my mindset as well, I call it being an ethical capitalist. It's hard to get many to understand that unfettered capitalism is bad for the majority and for the long term.

 

[BedrockBrendan]

It's not technicalities. If you're going to call something a Monopoly, you have to go by standard definitions of the word.

But there are different definitions of monopoly. There is the official Federal Trade Commission definitions. But you will hear economists on the radio all the time debating whether something like Amazon is a monopoly. Like I said before I am no expert and I am not an economist, but I do know I have long had and continue to have very serious concerns about Amazon's size and power, and its ability to do things like potentially shape media content and/or availability

 

[chuckdee]

But there are different definitions of monopoly. There is the official Federal Trade Commission definitions. But you will hear economists on the radio all the time debating whether something like Amazon is a monopoly. Like I said before I am no expert and I am not an economist, but I do know I have long had and continue to have very serious concerns about Amazon's size and power, and its ability to do things like potentially shape media content and/or availability

though you have debates, in order to have a frame of reference for titling something a particular thing, you have to have a set definition. The definition quoted above is not the FTC definition. It's a generic definition. And to say, as the argument against it did, that it is technicalities isn't kosher, IMO.

 

[Acmegamer]

No I think it isnt a monopoly because of Target, Walmart, and a million other retailers.

Dominant player is not a monopoly. It just isnt. It can be an issue but there's a question of if a competitor can knock them out if they screw up or they simply can't get in. If Amazon says fuck it I'm going to raise prices 30% will consumers stay? Do they have options? Yes they do. That's what shows you it's not a monopoly.

Most of the concerns here are about these guys being Monopsony's. That's the producer side of the equation. We all buy deodorant not in boxes anymore because Walmart told the suppliers we wont buy from you if you don't change your packaging to get rid of the box. They had such a dominance on purchasing that suppliers had to change packaging to comply. BedrockBrendan is concerned about the power of a single buyer in OBS. If he doesn't wholesale to them under their conditions he is saying he effectively cant sell.

What annoys me about your posts in this thread, is that you seem fixated on hair splitting what is and what isn't a monopoly versus the just as unhealthy monopsony. Don't you have an opinion on the good or the bad for creator, buyer etc? Everyone else appears to be mostly debating that, while you debate with everyone when they vary what the definition of a monopoly is. Basically a distraction from the greater and more important points.

 

[Bunch]

It also isn't an if. They changed the reporting policy so that things come down right away if someone reports them. So even if OBS ultimately rules your product is fine, you lose all that time and momentum after launch to succeed (and no one wants to have their book come down two days after its released because someone hits a report button). Then it is in review until they make a decision (which is its own issue). In order to avoid having this problem, companies need to take a more expansive view of the content policy guidelines to protect themselves. So the effect in my opinion is content is already being adjusted and self censored on the publishing end in order to avert this sort of issue.

Also "if" matters here. A sudden change of leadership could be massive, and if they continue to have this market position, it means you effectively have this ticking time bomb until that sort of change develops (and then you will have a massive shake up in the hobby). And if that were to occur, I am not confident competition would be able to surface. Look Amazon has all kinds of lousy anticompetitive anti consumer behavior, but no one shifts to other platforms because they are simply too big and too convenient. Most people are not going to get activist with their spending in that way. Also the argument people seem to be making is if OBS is a monopoly or if it is an effective monopoly, its a benevolent monopoly so its fine. I just don't buy that reasoning. Again, nothing against OBS in particular. I think they have done a good job overall. But I don't think this is a healthy market landscape for the hobby. I think we would be better off if there were more competition, and given OBS power and position I think it has a responsibility to the hobby to not abuse that position and to make sure things like its content policy guidelines are having minimal impact on practices like self censorship.

I completely agree with your immediate take down concerns. That's messed up. No crank on the internet should have so much power to destroy a publisher out of the gate. There should be some process whereby you can purchase an advanced review and guarantee that doesn't happen.

Life is generally better if there is competition. That's a pretty central theme to capitalism. The question is why hasn't a successful competitor emerged if there is money to be made here, consumers willing to buy from them and publishers willing to use them? I was just reviewing itch.io to complain about how much their UI sucks and how hard it is to find TTRPGs there and noticed they seem to have realized there is a large enough market there to devote resources to improving that UI. It still looks too much like a reject from the Myspace days but it's getting better.

 

[AsenRG]

It's actually simpler.
"Monopoly is a control or advantage obtained by one entity over the commercial market in a specific area."
And we've already had game publishers telling us that there's definite control over the market by OBS.

Monopoly Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

Monopoly is a control or advantage obtained by one entity over the commercial market in a specific area. Monopolization is an offense under federal anti trust law. The two elements of

definitions.uslegal.com

 

[BedrockBrendan]

I completely agree with your immediate take down concerns. That's messed up. No crank on the internet should have so much power to destroy a publisher out of the gate. There should be some process whereby you can purchase an advanced review and guarantee that doesn't happen.

Okay so this is a good point of agreement. Now consider that this wouldn't be the problem it is, if OBS wasn't so crucial for a product's roll out.

Life is generally better if there is competition. That's a pretty central theme to capitalism. The question is why hasn't a successful competitor emerged if there is money to be made here, consumers willing to buy from them and publishers willing to use them?

I would say there once was competition and now it is gone because of the merger. And I think people haven't considered the long term ramifications of a massive PDF seller dominating the market because of the convenience. People have tried to create competition. But once you have a behemoth like an Amazon or an OBS it is really difficult to change peoples buying habits and internet surfing habits.

I am not saying the government needs to step in and bust up OBS or something. I am just saying we should be mindful of what the actual situation is and what impact it is both having on content and what potential problems it could create. I think the best way forward is for people to at least consider supporting competition when they see it and when it emerges, and be more cautious about applying pressure to OBS to take down stuff they don't like or rise up new content policies (because I think a lot of these kinds of efforts will have damaging unintended consequences to the hobby).

I was just reviewing itch.io to complain about how much their UI sucks and how hard it is to find TTRPGs there and noticed they seem to have realized there is a large enough market there to devote resources to improving that UI. It still looks too much like a reject from the Myspace days but it's getting better.

I agree it looks bad. I suspect that may be part of its appeal though to the people who are causing it to thrive (even if it isn't genuine rival to OBS, it clearly has gotten some kind of traction). But I just don' know enough about Itch.io to speculate further.

 

[Bunch]

What annoys me about your posts in this thread, is that you seem fixated on hair splitting what is and what isn't a monopoly versus the just as unhealthy monopsony. Don't you have an opinion on the good or the bad for creator, buyer etc? Everyone else appears to be mostly debating that, while you debate with everyone when they vary what the definition of a monopoly is. Basically a distraction from the greater and more important points.

Partly because it isn't hairsplitting to me. I see arguments about this could or might or maybe be bad in the future if someone evil takes over. But so far it seems largely run effectively, with mostly consumer benefits and what no one is saying but also seems to be true is mostly publisher benefits. I mean BedrockBrendan I'm guessing you make more now under a large OBS environment that you did in a fragmented market where folks first had to know you existed then find where on the internet you might sell and then trust your shopping engine. People seem to be forgetting the benefits of OBS's position TO THEM and only focusing on where it might hurt them.

The one exception that I completely agree with is the instant off for complaints over content and that's a big one.

It's actually simpler.
"Monopoly is a control or advantage obtained by one entity over the commercial market in a specific area."
And we've already had game publishers telling us that there's definite control over the market by OBS.

Monopoly Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

Monopoly is a control or advantage obtained by one entity over the commercial market in a specific area. Monopolization is an offense under federal anti trust law. The two elements of

definitions.uslegal.com

Here's the full quote which provides a lot more and different context:

Monopoly is a control or advantage obtained by one entity over the commercial market in a specific area. Monopolization is an offense under federal anti trust law. The two elements of monopolization are (1) the power to fix prices and exclude competitors within the relevant market. (2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen or historical accident.

A market condition in which there is only one seller and one buyer is called a bilateral monopoly. A situation where one buyer controls the market is called monopsony.

My emphasis added.

 

[BedrockBrendan]

though you have debates, in order to have a frame of reference for titling something a particular thing, you have to have a set definition. The definition quoted above is not the FTC definition. It's a generic definition. And to say, as the argument against it did, that it is technicalities isn't kosher, IMO.

I didn't see the definition posted in question but i know when I looked up monopoly I nouns definitions that matched my useage in regards to Amazon and OBS. Now I am not saying these definitions are the right ones (though I did find them on reliable sources, and didn't post them because it seemed that cherry picking on this subject is rather easy to do). But again I think if professional economists who work at universities are arguing something like Amazon is a monopoly, then there is plenty of room for discussion and we don't have to be pinned to a narrow definition of the word

 

[BedrockBrendan]

Partly because it isn't hairsplitting to me. I see arguments about this could or might or maybe be bad in the future if someone evil takes over. But so far it seems largely run effectively, with mostly consumer benefits and what no one is saying but also seems to be true is mostly publisher benefits. I mean BedrockBrendan I'm guessing you make more now under a large OBS environment that you did in a fragmented market where folks first had to know you existed then find where on the internet you might sell and then trust your shopping engine. People seem to be forgetting the benefits of OBS's position TO THEM and only focusing on where it might hurt them.

It would be difficult for me to crunch those numbers because I used to have a different PDF sales arrangement when there were two platforms (we went through a third party to put up our PDFs at that time). I don't believe I am making more, but there are lots of reasons for why that is the case.

Also I haven't ignored the benefits of OBS. I have said several times there are advantages just like there are advantages with Amazon. That doesn't mean there aren't serious concerns about the power OBS has over the market, concerns about how that power can and has been weaponized by people, and concerns about how their guidelines, because they are so important, shape the content you, the consumer, have access to. I like a lot of things about OBS. I am not saying take it down. I am saying though people ought to be a lot more mindful when they call for the power of OBS to be used to do things like remove content they don't like----because every little change in policy, every time something like that happens, effects how other publishers write and design

 

[Bunch]

Okay so this is a good point of agreement. Now consider that this wouldn't be the problem it is, if OBS wasn't so crucial for a product's roll out.



I would say there once was competition and now it is gone because of the merger. And I think people haven't considered the long term ramifications of a massive PDF seller dominating the market because of the convenience. People have tried to create competition. But once you have a behemoth like an Amazon or an OBS it is really difficult to change peoples buying habits and internet surfing habits.

I am not saying the government needs to step in and bust up OBS or something. I am just saying we should be mindful of what the actual situation is and what impact it is both having on content and what potential problems it could create. I think the best way forward is for people to at least consider supporting competition when they see it and when it emerges, and be more cautious about applying pressure to OBS to take down stuff they don't like or rise up new content policies (because I think a lot of these kinds of efforts will have damaging unintended consequences to the hobby).



I agree it looks bad. I suspect that may be part of its appeal though to the people who are causing it to thrive (even if it isn't genuine rival to OBS, it clearly has gotten some kind of traction). But I just don' know enough about Itch.io to speculate further.

I would summarize my point as they (OBS) are dominant because they are meeting the consumer and largely publishers needs. Yes they could become a problem. Yes I would like to see more options to keep them from abusing a dominant position but A) they don't seem to be abusing it B) I can't tell if there is that much keeping them dominant.

Lets say Evil Pointy Haired boss says "No more OSR!" or "No more Storygames!" what's going to happen? Are all OSR/Storygames going to go away? Not likely. They shift to most likely itch.io/lulu taking a visibility & revenue hit initially. If OBS keeps that policy then itch.io/lulu suddenly switches to the place to be and now is a competitor to OBS and ironically has the exact same power OBS had just over a more limited area. My point is OBS can only get away with shenanigans at the margins before it creates a competitor. Amazon has greater power simply due to dealing with the physical world more. Physicality requires infrastructure

It would be difficult for me to crunch those numbers because I used to have a different PDF sales arrangement when there were two platforms (we went through a third party to put up our PDFs at that time). I don't believe I am making more, but there are lots of reasons for why that is the case.

Also I haven't ignored the benefits of OBS. I have said several times there are advantages just like there are advantages with Amazon. That doesn't mean there aren't serious concerns about the power OBS has over the market, concerns about how that power can and has been weaponized by people, and concerns about how their guidelines, because they are so important, shape the content you, the consumer, have access to. I like a lot of things about OBS. I am not saying take it down. I am saying though people ought to be a lot more mindful when they call for the power of OBS to be used to do things like remove content they don't like----because every little change in policy, every time something like that happens, effects how other publishers write and design

Yeah I feel like you constantly are arguing here in good faith so I hope I'm not coming across like you aren't. For me the strongest point you've made is the instant take down objection. That's real, now and not theoretical other than what content is likely to be affected. It would be very reassuring if they made public what was taken down and why with specifics so publishers could feel more confident.

 

[chuckdee]

Partly because it isn't hairsplitting to me. I see arguments about this could or might or maybe be bad in the future if someone evil takes over. But so far it seems largely run effectively, with mostly consumer benefits and what no one is saying but also seems to be true is mostly publisher benefits. I mean BedrockBrendan I'm guessing you make more now under a large OBS environment that you did in a fragmented market where folks first had to know you existed then find where on the internet you might sell and then trust your shopping engine. People seem to be forgetting the benefits of OBS's position TO THEM and only focusing on where it might hurt them.

The one exception that I completely agree with is the instant off for complaints over content and that's a big one.

Here's the full quote which provides a lot more and different context:

Monopoly is a control or advantage obtained by one entity over the commercial market in a specific area. Monopolization is an offense under federal anti trust law. The two elements of monopolization are (1) the power to fix prices and exclude competitors within the relevant market. (2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen or historical accident.

A market condition in which there is only one seller and one buyer is called a bilateral monopoly. A situation where one buyer controls the market is called monopsony.

My emphasis added.

I didn't see the definition posted in question but i know when I looked up monopoly I nouns definitions that matched my useage in regards to Amazon and OBS. Now I am not saying these definitions are the right ones (though I did find them on reliable sources, and didn't post them because it seemed that cherry picking on this subject is rather easy to do). But again I think if professional economists who work at universities are arguing something like Amazon is a monopoly, then there is plenty of room for discussion and we don't have to be pinned to a narrow definition of the word

See above. Bunch covered it well, I think, and the reason I dwell on it, and the fact that bias (as shown in the cutting of the actual definition) and drift because of bias can be the reason that such deviations exist.

 

[Bunch]

Also, it shouldn’t be a requirement for these online sellers to unify their libraries. That’s up to the customer to keep all their usernames and passwords straight.

Unifying libraries is a competitive advantage. I believe GOG has a client to keep all your video game libraries neat and tidy and tells you where you own something all to basically be the first place you go when you want to start playing your games. It's how you compete when you arent the market leader.

 

[Yeti Spaghetti]

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

I do now, but I still occasionally get very strong demands for POD. Admittedly, a part of that is likely coming from overseas folks, who I have to charge an arm and a leg for shipping if they want my stuff. DTRPG takes care of that for them.

 

[BedrockBrendan]

I would summarize my point as they (OBS) are dominant because they are meeting the consumer and largely publishers needs. Yes they could become a problem. Yes I would like to see more options to keep them from abusing a dominant position but A) they don't seem to be abusing it B) I can't tell if there is that much keeping them dominant.

Lets say Evil Pointy Haired boss says "No more OSR!" or "No more Storygames!" what's going to happen? Are all OSR/Storygames going to go away? Not likely. They shift to most likely itch.io/lulu taking a visibility & revenue hit initially. If OBS keeps that policy then itch.io/lulu suddenly switches to the place to be and now is a competitor to OBS and ironically has the exact same power OBS had just over a more limited area. My point is OBS can only get away with shenanigans at the margins before it creates a competitor. Amazon has greater power simply due to dealing with the physical world more. Physicality requires infrastructure

See here is where we probably disagree a lot. I think we are best to just leave points A and B as we have gone back on those two points again and again (and it is just clear we aren't going to see eye to eye). But in terms of the consequences of OBS suddenly doing something like saying 'no more story games', yes it would seriously impact how many story games get made. There is not question in my mind about that. It would be like Amazon suddenly saying "No science fiction" (actually it would be more significant than Amazon saying that, because int eh case of Amazon there are alternative streaming platforms). Would story games go away entirely? No. Would they fully recover? I doubt it. And if they did I think it would take a long time for them to find a platform and migrate an audience and build an audience on that platform.

 

[Bunch]

See here is where we probably disagree a lot. I think we are best to just leave points A and B as we have gone back on those two points again and again (and it is just clear we aren't going to see eye to eye). But in terms of the consequences of OBS suddenly doing something like saying 'no more story games', yes it would seriously impact how many story games get made. There is not question in my mind about that. It would be like Amazon suddenly saying "No science fiction" (actually it would be more significant than Amazon saying that, because int eh case of Amazon there are alternative streaming platforms). Would story games go away entirely? No. Would they fully recover? I doubt it. And if they did I think it would take a long time for them to find a platform and migrate an audience and build an audience on that platform.

Then I think it would be informative to let us consumers know what it would take to shift your current products to Lulu(assuming print is a significant concern) or itch.io/(someone else)

My guess is if OBS tried it you would see the same level of outrage as you did when WotC tried to change the OGL. Even if I hated Storygames I'd suddenly become aware this is now something OBS is willing to do and then might do to my fond topic at a whim. Don't you think every online space would blow up about how you need to get all your stuff off OBS now and start trying to sort out who's the #2 to switch to?

 

[BedrockBrendan]

Then I think it would be informative to let us consumers know what it would take to shift your current products to Lulu(assuming print is a significant concern) or itch.io/(someone else)

I am not on Lulu or Itchio. But I am on plenty of other platforms (like I said, I am not exclusive to OBS). Right now there isn't much you can do because there isn't a viable alternative. Paizo I've stopped using because it just wasn't worth the effort, and now I have PDFs up on OBS and on our Print seller website. There are still PDFs out there scattered on other sites but for the most part there are just two places to go.

If you did want me and other publishers to invest more time in other platforms, the way to do that is to start buying PDFs from other sites and letting publishers know about sites you find that you think are better than OBS. Itchio looks interesting to me but like I said, I don't really understand it.

But part of my point here is there isn't much to be done at the moment, because OBS has such a dominant position in the market.

Individually, something you can probably do is, if you know a publisher is putting a PDF out and it isn't on OBS, promote them where you can. That is good general advice whether something is on OBS or not (if you want to see more of something in the RPG world, make sure you are posting about it, reviewing it (and I mean writing actual reviews not leaving star reviews, letting gamer YouTube channels know about it so it gets covered, etc). Part of the issue here is there used to be a more vital RPGs news ecosystem and lots of places you could go to get the word out. Over time the reach of most of those have shrunk or they've gotten saturated with so much content coming out, and it is just harder and hard to get eyes on something from a press release or initial marketing effort. That is a reason OBS is so important as well. They are effectively the RPG news page for a lot of people. That is where people go to find out what just got released and what is hot.

But my big point isn't even any of that. It is just: Don't weaponize OBS to help control the RPG content landscape. Even well intentioned efforts mean there is just greater likelihood of self censorship on the part of Publishers (which again wouldn't be a problem if OBS was one among many competitors, but it is basically the only game in town). There are a lot of things like policy guidelines that sound nice, there are occasionally very unpopular people who get taken down for whatever reason, but any changes to OBS have a lasting effect for all publishers to consider (and it isn't always going to be in the direction people expect).

 

[BedrockBrendan]

Don't you think every online space would blow up about how you need to get all your stuff off OBS now and start trying to sort out who's the #2 to switch to?

I think there would be outrage. But even if you look at the OGL, which was a massive burst of outrage, and definitely a bright red line for like most gamers who are online, it has kind of settled down. Now maybe there is still enough energy that when 6E comes out, that anger is going to impact sales. And I can only speak to the little sliver of the universe I see from my vantage point only and in reality, but my impression initially was the OGL thing was going to destroy WOTC. Now I am not so sure. I think ultimately people still want WOTC D&D and that is what they are going to buy. They might not like what WOTC did, but I also see a lot more people defining them now. But we will see

Like I said, Story games wouldn't go away. But that kind of move would create enormous uncertainty and I am not confident they would recover from that (also in that time, it would also mean for at least like a 2-6 month period while people try to recalibrate, you have a bunch of releases that get completely torpedoed). So it wouldn't be good, even if in the end something like a new platform emerged and was able to rectify the situation in some way. Now would all the angry gamers, even those who don't play story games, go to this new platform? I doubt it. If you look at how angry people get at social media companies in large numbers and say they are going to migrate elsewhere, and how that never quite seems to take hold, I think it isn't impossible but it shows there is huge risk of that energy dissipating. Or just look at what happened when Google + went away. We all tried to salvage whatever groups we had on there (I had one with over 100 members for example, can't recall the exact number). It just proved impossible to migrate that energy onto another platform in my case. But then you do occasionally get things like Discord. So i am not saying "No, a good outcome can't happen". I just think there is a great likelihood that them doing that would have a more harmful effect on story games long term than a positive one.