50 Dylan CDs and an Icepick | 28 Nov 2009 9:04 p.m. PST |
I culled this from another thread. It seems that no discussion of gaming books is complete without somebody saying something like this: "
unfortunately most people respond to the fluff, which is why publishers go that way – in order to get prices a little higher." It just blows my mind that people could think that. The amount of work required to do a high-quality full-color glossy book is simply staggering. We're talking roughly one year of pretty solid labor, involving a professional photographer, serious layout software, etc. Hell, I spent most of a month just getting the page *background* of Lasalle to look good, scanning images of old parchment, touching them up in Photoshop, layering and feathering. My wife spent several nights sketching miniature soldiers at our dinner table so I could scan them, colorize them, then create little graphics of all the possible base-types for every unit and nationality, for all the game illustrations and examples. And players nowadays expect an equally nice website with 24/7 constant support and various freebies like extra scenarios and downloads. Really making onesself available on such a forum, answering questions, devours time, but if I didn't do it, people would say that the game was just fluff and had no customer support. The expense of producing these books is likewise massively greater than for a traditional, simple black-and-white booklet. I was just yesterday talking to a fellow game designer (Barry Hilton) who has a new, glossy set out (Republic to Empire). He offers a spiffy three-page folding laminated quick-reference sheet with each book. I asked him how much he paid for that, because I'd looked into some of those, myself, and just found them too expensive. And he told me, and my jaw dropped. He had absolutely no need to do that; he could easily have just printed them on the same paper at the back of the book, and/or offered them as a PDF download on his website. But he came out of pocket to do that, and why? Because it looks really good and adds quality to the book. He did that for his customers, knowing full well that 90% would never appreciate how much it cost him, and what they're getting for their money. So PLEASE, for the last time, let's put this old canard to rest, shall we? The designers who produce high-quality glossy books nowadays are creating labors of love. We do it because this represents the best product we can produce, given our modest budgets and the constraints of being a tiny cottage industry. We are *Not* rubbing our hands together, thinking: "Ha Ha! A few more pictures of Hussars in pretty uniforms, and I can trick the suckers out of their hard-earned simoleans!" We are asking: "What could I price this at, knowing that most copies will be sold to retailers who will expect at least a 50% discount?" And: "If I include this pretty color stuff, how many more books will I have to sell, to break even?" |
Steven H Smith | 28 Nov 2009 9:15 p.m. PST |
Well, TLC, it certainly seems that way. Big Al |
John the OFM | 28 Nov 2009 9:19 p.m. PST |
Historical wargamers are cheap suspicious bastards. You do know that. We are proud of our Old school rulebooks with tiny fonts and no paragraph separation. We would enjoy it even more if they were mimeographed. |
Whatisitgood4atwork | 28 Nov 2009 9:22 p.m. PST |
I agree. Wargaming is still largely a cottage industry. It is natural that some products are a bit 'rough and ready', and there is nothing wrong with that. But to make that lack of professional finish a virtue in itself and pooh-pooh those who try to raise standards is going a bit far. 'I can't / don't want to match that, so let's just criticize it as fluff for the gullible' is not an attitude I support. Congrats on a GREAT wargaming product with LaSalle btw Sam. I got my copy yesterday and am most impressed with it. |
BravoX | 28 Nov 2009 9:48 p.m. PST |
Easy, create two versions. One the fluffy full color rule book sold via retailers, the other a text only pdf available online for a considerably smaller fee (50% less 'cos no cut for retailer, then minus the cost of a year spent creating images) then see which sells more. Its actually more useful like that as well 'cos if I play the rules I can photocopy them to give us a set per side during the game instead of fighting over who has the glossy rulebook. The only argument for the fluff is that most rules I buy never get played, they just sit on the shelf waiting for when I visit the reading room, so fluff is all I am really buying . |
Der Alte Fritz | 28 Nov 2009 9:55 p.m. PST |
Sam: you are preaching to the choir. I appreciate all that goes into some of the recent full color rules books and understand how costly they are to produce. I'm sure that you and Barry are not going to be able to retire on any profits that you make from your rules. Thank you for raising the bar on the production quality. That reminds me, I will have to buy a copy to support your efforts. |
Pizzagrenadier | 28 Nov 2009 10:20 p.m. PST |
I never understood the snarky poo pooing on quality level alone as some effort to trick people out of their money. As if we put guns to people's heads to make them buy stuff. Though maybe that is the marketing technique of the future. I mean businesses might as well start doing it since they get accused of it all the time, right? haha. It IS expensive to raise the quality level to certain points and publishing rules IS a labor of love that few if any of us will ever live off of. I agree TLC, this is a stupid old canard we should hope dies once and for all. Publishing a rules set also opens you up to a wide audience for criticism. It is not for the fainthearted or easily offended. One must walk a fine line between defending oneself from all kinds of criticisms, legitimate, AND insane, yet not succumb to getting defensive about it (and all of us who do it fail at walking this line from time to time). It's why I enjoy talking to other rules authors and publishers. It's a funny little club we belong to with a surprising amount of camraderie. You really do put yourself out there when you do it. I understand perfectly why some authors end up publishing high quality, yet expensive to produce rules where their efforts often go unrecognized for it
it's because they care about putting out something that looks good. But quality costs money, especially in publishing books where every page number counts. Of course, high quality of looks and printing cannot cover up low quality of rules, but that's not what this canard is about. |
Lee Brilleaux | 28 Nov 2009 10:21 p.m. PST |
it's always worth remembering that some people are idiots. And they aren't the ones who sit quietly, either. |
Pizzagrenadier | 28 Nov 2009 10:23 p.m. PST |
And Howard says more eloquently in two sentences than what I try to say in five paragraphs
Well said sir. |
Cyrano1966 | 28 Nov 2009 10:42 p.m. PST |
Mr. Mustafa (don't know you, shouldn't call you Sam, though you seem an all together nice fellow): The problem, I think, is that reviewers -- who, in this niche market you think would know better -- make the same mistake computer reviewers make when they compare HPS simulations to, say, Empire: Total War. They ooh, ah, and coo over the latter's prettiness and, indirectly or directly, denigrate those that ain't quite so purty. I cannot tell you how many reviews of PC games I've read that I find shockingly vapid and some here (myself included) were taken aback when this form=before-function sentiment seemed to creep into a prestigous journal's review of a very good set of rules. This and I bang my head in futility as all these wonderful young minds that should be seeing the granduer of historical gaming are lured to the Scylla (or is it the other one?) of GW's fictional universes
I love your rules (even if I am ashamed to say I don't play them) and I think they set a standard for format and presentation of which others could well take note. On the other hand, I find Napoleon a lovely coffee table conversation piece masquerading as a ruleset. For me it is always content first (which includes grammar, spelling, punctuation and reasonably cogent drafting (I"m looking at YOU Mr. Barker), four-colour splendour second. Thanks very much for making LaSalle what it is and be assured I will purchase Blucher, on spec, when available. Your reputation preceeds you. Best, Jim |
Cardinal Hawkwood | 28 Nov 2009 11:05 p.m. PST |
there is only one thing worse than people talking about your rules
and that is
|
95thRegt | 28 Nov 2009 11:23 p.m. PST |
Hey, I'll admit,I'm a HUGE sucker for nice big glossy rule sets! I have quite a few,even of periods I will never do! The first one that hooked me was Fire and Fury with all those neat color pics of those awesome 25mm OG figures! The rules? Hated them! Still do. My point being,glossy rulebooks with lots of pics of pretty figures sell! They catch the eye. They may be the worst rules ever! But I will buy them over the photocopied set of the best rules ever anyday! The trick is, is to make a set of awesome rules along with the pretty pics of colorful figures! I have yet to see that! Bob C. |
badger22 | 29 Nov 2009 12:01 a.m. PST |
I dont buy Sams books. Not because of cost or writing or any of that. I simply disagree with some of the things he does with the ruoles, such as stand removal. However, I wish Rudy Nelson could re-issue an updated version of Guard Du Corp at the same standard as Lasalle. His last on was a great deal (free), I they are the main set I use. In fact the only set for 3-4 years now. But for whatever reason they have never been that popular, so I totaly understand why he was not done this. Some years ago I was makeing chainmail for a re-enactor group I was a member of. Several people started complaining that my prices where way to high. I sat down and worked out what I was making an hour after materiel costs. It came out a bit less the $3 USD an hour, somewhat less than half of minimum wage. It was worth it when it was appreciated by the other members. When I became a money grubbing profiteer, it no longer was. I have no idea what a game designer makes. I bet it is not that much on an hourly rate. Probably many of them would make more by taking a job at 7-11 or some such. The market will decide. If the high end books dont sell enough to justify thier investment, then they will disappear. I hope they dont. I do wish a few compannys would drop a couple pages of pictures and hire a semi-literate proofreader. And no that is definatly not directed and Sam and Co. |
Arteis | 29 Nov 2009 12:23 a.m. PST |
Well said, Sam. What we are seeing with the latest lot of horse-and-musket rules are products by people who care enough about the hobby to give it their absolute best. Your rules 'Lasalle', the League of Augsburg's 'Republic to Empire' and Warlord Games' (Rick Priestley, the Perry twins et al) 'Black Powder' are all rule-sets from people who have long been stalwarts of the wargaming community, and who are not ones to settle for second-best. All the above rules have different philosophies behind them, but the thing that they share in common is a desire to provide a book that is more than simply a set of rules. For those who don't like this, that's fine – there are plenty of cheaper and less well-presented rules out there, that are every bit as good (TFL's 'Le Feu Sacre' even makes this one of its selling points). In the end, yes, the market will decide
I actually think it'll come out choosing the best of both types. There'll be some glossies left behind if it turns out the rules themselves are shonky, but the same applies to shonky b&w rules as well. But I, for one, am very thankful for the dedicated work that people like Sam, Barry and Rick are putting in to give us their very best rather than just 'good enough'. Hours and hours and hours of extra work – so that we only have to pay an extra few quid for rules that will do so much more than just regulate a game. |
bruntonboy | 29 Nov 2009 12:36 a.m. PST |
I think many of the comments are actually referring to the eulogies written about new rule sets by reviews from all sources that seem to equate high end production with the rule actual quality and playability. I know I have made a few comments myself along the same lines, however I don't for one moment believe the move to hardback/glossy/eye candy is purely a profit motivation. indeed to a certain extent I believe it is likely to result in less sales as people don't buy rules on the chance they may turn out to be winners due to a much larger price tag. I'll be taking a look at Lasalle and Republic to Empire at my next show and will probably buy one of them but to be honest years ago when the black and white card cover was the norm, I would have bought both on spec. All the best Sam and I hope they are as good as Grande Armee was. |
psiloi | 29 Nov 2009 3:15 a.m. PST |
We have to remember the Era we live in. It's instant fulfillment, NOW, NOW, NOW!!! And , by God, it has to be better than what is already out there! There is so much that is seemingly simple, to make evrything look better, but we demand more and more eyecandy in all that we have. Working in the printing field, I see alot of people walk into our shop with a computer file that needs tons of serious work, but these people think what they have done is great. Most simply don't appreciate that you can't just click a button to get what you want. Doubly so for most consumers. They think that there has to be a program to "make it look better". But the program is hours of professional attention. And talking to the profit, the more a person wants, the more it costs. You can get some volume discounts, but many of the self publishers aren't putting out that much product. But let's face it --- we all want as much as possible for as little as possible. So in the end, if we don't want eyecandy, don't buy eyecandy! |
NoLongerAMember | 29 Nov 2009 3:15 a.m. PST |
I disagree, LFSIII is actually excellently presented, it just has no internal colour pictures or extraneous fluff. Lasalle and RTE both interest me as well, as they are clearly defined sets of rules, by people who know their period well, but I avoid Black Powder (I dislike one size fits all rules) and Napolean (starter set as much a sales tool for the figures illustrated as being a set of rules) and their like. |
Jeremy Sutcliffe | 29 Nov 2009 3:21 a.m. PST |
I've been a critic of the "over glossy" ever since the Shako2 debacle when rising costs meant that colour pictures were abandoned for the, as it turned out, murky black and white. At the same time I was clear in my praise for the quality of the "isometric" diagrams illustrating/explaining aspects of the rules. I can point to sets of rules where there are, to my mind, too many pages of nothing bu eye candy which do not add to the quality of the rules and go beyond an aesthetic decision to enhance a page containing rule information. I will continue to criticise this trend. But note. I have never accused rule writers of bumping up prices to line their pockets. I suspect the only real "profit" from rule writing is the prestige of knowing that you have written a respected set and that you have contributed to the enjoyment of the hobby. I think it is more than legitimate to question whether the pretification of rules is going too far. At the end of the day, rules sell because word of mouth/posts on a thread say that they are good rule mechanisms. |
Connard Sage | 29 Nov 2009 3:33 a.m. PST |
Sam, Sam, this is beginning to look like obsession. Let it go. Read what the OFM and MJS wrote. Now. Breathe in
deeply
breathe out s-l-o-w-l-y. There. Feel better? |
Happy Little Trees | 29 Nov 2009 3:44 a.m. PST |
|
AndrewGPaul | 29 Nov 2009 5:27 a.m. PST |
Your point, Barsoom? I like glossy full-colour rulebooks. I like them for fictional settings, because the artwork and layout of the book goes a long way to fleshing out the setting. I like them in historical books for pretty much the same reason. I won't ever play DBA or its ilk because the rulebook on a shelf simply doesn't inspire me to get into the setting. However, the WAB rulebook's cover alone made me want a Roman army, and the little vignettes between paragraphs only helped that. The Legends of the Old West and High Seas books were the same, but they also provided a little bit of the history behind the games. Not a huge amount, not enough to replace actual research, but enough to make me want to play the game. That's what the better examples of "glossy" rulebooks do. plain laser-printed stapled booklets are fine for people who are already into the period concerned, know all the little nitpicky details and the like, but none of those expand the audience. |
AndrewGPaul | 29 Nov 2009 5:29 a.m. PST |
Sam, Sam, this is beginning to look like obsession. Let it go. Read what the OFM and MJS wrote.Now. Breathe in
deeply
breathe out s-l-o-w-l-y. There. Feel better? If the people railing against better production values don't give it a rest, why should Sam? |
Tzen67 | 29 Nov 2009 5:54 a.m. PST |
I think Barsoom is trying to highlight the excellent gaming support Lasalle gets over on the Honour website. |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 29 Nov 2009 6:10 a.m. PST |
Andrew, Maybe you prefer to wagame smaller actions, but what a shame! I think in favouring WAB in prefernce to DBA, for the way it looks you may have missed out on the varied ways in which DB-type game systems can represent larger actions. Lots of people have tweaked, expanded (and translated them!) and even though you may not play them, there are the official DBM variants too, to get some ideas & inspiration from. Take for instance, feined routs, or when elements are considered "spent" rather than "destroyed" could have a knock-on effect in a campaign. |
Fred Cartwright | 29 Nov 2009 7:16 a.m. PST |
Your point, Barsoom? I think his point was that the time should be spent on getting the rules right with proof reading and play testing. Not on pretty pictures although I don't think Lasalle is a fair example. Seems a very short erratta to me. The general point remains that some rules substitute high production values for good basic rule play testing and proof reading. Both is good, but if I had to choose I'd rather have good rules than pretty pictures. |
50 Dylan CDs and an Icepick | 29 Nov 2009 7:37 a.m. PST |
[I simply disagree with some of the things he does with the ruoles, such as stand removal.] None of my games have ever featured stand removal. I think you have me confused with Fire & Fury. |
arthur1815 | 29 Nov 2009 7:37 a.m. PST |
Jeremy Sutcliffe wrote: "I think it is more than legitimate to question whether the pretification of rules is going too far. At the end of the day, rules sell because word of mouth/posts on a thread say that they are good rule mechanisms." Well said, sir! Personally, although Sam began another thread on this theme by quoting me, I have never accused the writers of high production value, extensively colour illustrated wargame rules of being motivated solely by profit or of seeking to inflate prices by publishing their work in this form. It may, indeed, be the case that, since the proliferation of GW rulebooks, that they feel obliged to do so, lest their work languish unpurchased and unread because it is insufficiently eye-catching to attract attention. A sad comment on the superficiality and obsession with 'image' in society today. What I did point out was the high – albeit justified by production values – price of such rules risked putting them beyond a psychological barrier that people of my generation, who grew up with two shilling/£0.10 Airfix kits or boxes of 20mm figures, have lurking in their subconscious minds, so that they will be very chary of purchasing them. And that, I think, remains valid. |
50 Dylan CDs and an Icepick | 29 Nov 2009 7:53 a.m. PST |
In all seriousness, though, isn't this basically the same question as asking whether you're satisfied with the old 1970s / 1980s simple figure sculpts, or whether you're tempted by the newer, larger, better-sculpted figures that cost more? Obviously, you can play a wargame with the old blobby figures, and save a lot of money. It is patently unnecessary for the sculptor to sculpt sideburns and a moustache on a 28mm figure, much less a 15mm one. Who really paints buttons, anyway? But since our hobby is so beholden to aesthetics, it seems that an attention to aesthetic appeal is a natural impulse. It's not "superficial" – it's the whole point. For a lot of people, it's inspirational and fun. |
arthur1815 | 29 Nov 2009 8:06 a.m. PST |
"In all seriousness, though, isn't this basically the same question as asking whether you're satisfied with the old 1970s / 1980s simple figure sculpts, or whether you're tempted by the newer, larger, better-sculpted figures that cost more?" Personally, I'm quite happy with simple figures – but perhaps that's because I have neither the skill nor the desire to paint them to the high standards that appear in the glossy magazines
"But since our hobby is so beholden to aesthetics
" If it is, I am questioning whether it needs to/should be! |
50 Dylan CDs and an Icepick | 29 Nov 2009 8:12 a.m. PST |
Arthur, I'm saying that you and Jeremy are presenting the situation as a black/white, either/or, when in reality it's a continuum. Okay, so you'd play with the old 1970s Minifigs, and I probably wouldn't. But would you play with them unpainted? On a bare table with no terrain? Or how about with pieces of wood instead of miniatures? Everybody draws a line somewhere and says, "Hey, this is my hobby, and I like the way it looks." Most people just draw that line in a different place now, than they did 20 years ago. |
Fred Cartwright | 29 Nov 2009 8:28 a.m. PST |
Everybody draws a line somewhere and says, "Hey, this is my hobby, and I like the way it looks." Most people just draw that line in a different place now, than they did 20 years ago. Yes and no. The Old School Wargamers conciously try to recreate some of that. Old style figures, more simple scenery, old rules such as Charge and The Wargame. There is room for everyone surely. What I don't accept it that a set or rules without glossy production values is bad and that one that does is good. To use another analogy would you buy a car simply on its looks? I think you'd want a test drive first. |
Quindia | 29 Nov 2009 8:44 a.m. PST |
I'm gonna second Sam on this. Full disclosure: I am the art director, the graphic designer, the cover artist, the interior artist, the layout guy, and typesetter of REPUBLIC TO EMPIRE. I took maybe a third of the photographs, painted extra units specifically for inclusion in the book, play tested mechanics, and spent every night for maybe three months proofreading, editing, and swapping photos. Barry and I spent 18 months from the time he sent me the draft manuscript until we sent the book away to the printer. We set out to make the kind of game that we enjoy and to make the best looking product we could. I've been wargaming for 25 years and REPUBLIC TO EMPIRE has provided me with games as fun as any other set I've played. Are we going to make money? You bet – BENEATH THE LILY BANNERS is sold out and that covered a relatively obscure period. Are we going to quit our day jobs? Hardly. Without going into every detail, there are many costs associated with a project like this beyond the printing. It cost $300US round trip to send the proofs from London to the USA so I could approve them! The REPUBLIC TO EMPIRE and play sheets print run had to be shipped when it was finished and weighed in around 4 tons! Then there is advertising, promo copies for reviewers, and the 50% Sam mentioned for retailers. All of this is paid before we make anything and much of it is required up front. ALL of these new sets represent a lot of work by someone. I bought ALL of them
|
Austin Rob | 29 Nov 2009 9:05 a.m. PST |
(caveat: lots of generalizations here). As a retailer, I can certainly say that prettier books sell better than plain ones. Pretty rules that are actually GOOD are the best. Plain rules that are GOOD sell ok, maybe about as well as OK rules that are glossy. My best sellers are glossy (FOW and FOG) I have no plain rules that are top sellers. |
John the OFM | 29 Nov 2009 9:26 a.m. PST |
1776 rules came out some time around 1976 +/- a year or two. For the time, they were surprsingly ahead of the time, with illustrations of formations, and inaccurate engravings of American Revilution subjects. Damn good rules too. |
CPBelt | 29 Nov 2009 9:30 a.m. PST |
I still say the best rulebook I bought recently was The Sword & The Flame. I think Larry Brom's philosophy of publishing rules as stated in his Introduction is something everyone should read and follow. IMO wargamnes have fallen into the RPG trap of glitzy publishing. If glitzy publishing is a labor of love, then those who do it should shut about it. You do it because you love doing it. Who cares what other folks think. Who cares if folks don't want to worship at that altar. You are an artist! Now get back to creating more art! |
M C MonkeyDew | 29 Nov 2009 9:43 a.m. PST |
Have to second Fred Cartwright here. I take issue with the notion that rules have to be glossy in order to be competitive or that wargamers *demand* GW style graphic presentation
both arguments I have heard used by the pro-glossy crowd. What I am reading from Sam's posts is that he chose to make the rules glossy and more expensive not to profit, but simply because he can and wanted to. Is that not so? I am sorry if I misrepresent the case and encourage clarification. BTW I have no problem with glossy rules but must say I purchase fewer of them. Felt burned by Shako II which plays like same old same old under murky pictures. On the other hand I love Tactica. In short pretty pictures or not it is the content ultimately that counts for me, and I don't like shelling out 30-50 USD a pop just to see if game X might have something innovative going on inside. For this reason I found Evil Gong's La Salle review very helpful as I know to cross that offering off my list of potential purposes. All rules are a matter of personal preference and I am not saying La Salle is "bad" in any way, just that it is not value for money in my case. Bob (who has rules in print and is not involved in the laying out process for full disclosure).
|
bruntonboy | 29 Nov 2009 9:56 a.m. PST |
Actually Shako II is a case in point here, we had the original and played it a lot- we liked it but I couldn't see the £25+ of improvements and its a lot of money for a new colour cover. If on the other hand it had been £10.00 GBP or less I would have bought it without blinking, rather like I have 5 versions of DBM upstairs, they were cheap enough to keep up with the revisions without worry. |
By John 54 | 29 Nov 2009 10:03 a.m. PST |
Really, who gives a stuff? if no-one buys glossy rules, no-one will make them, and if everyone wants them, they will sell bucketloads, and more people will up their rules production ante. Good luck to ALL the wargames retailers, I hope they all sell tons of their kit, so, people, as is often needed on this nerdfest of a forum, listen very carefully, I'll type this slowly
.. If you like them, for WHATEVER reason, buy them!, if you don't
..don't! It really is that simple! John |
basileus66 | 29 Nov 2009 10:05 a.m. PST |
Yeah, much better the old fashioned black and white photocopies. That's the proof of a good ruleset! A nice published book, with lot of glossy photos of beautifully painted miniatures, good layout and full colour diagrams to explain the rules must be a lousy trick to fool us into the path of wargaming damnation. |
M C MonkeyDew | 29 Nov 2009 10:11 a.m. PST |
Basileus66, You state the inverse case Sir! Quality of the rules themselves is independent of colour layout and glossy paper. The presence or absence of one does not imply the presence or absence of the other. |
Condottiere | 29 Nov 2009 10:15 a.m. PST |
What I don't accept it that a set or rules without glossy production values is bad and that one that does is good. That's not the argument or part of the discussion. Nobody seems to be asserting that black and white photocopied rules are inherently bad and glossy high production value rules are better. |
badger22 | 29 Nov 2009 11:18 a.m. PST |
Yes Sam I know you dont believe in stand removal. I do. But I didnt really mean to knock you rules, as I totaly agree that rules writers are not getting rich on this stuff. I also like readable rules in desent print size instead of the fineprint memeograph style of some rules I own. One page of Errata is good. And it seems to have been put out quickly. One of the newer FoW books is going to have 5-6 pages of errata, if they ever put it out at all. |
KnightTemplarr | 29 Nov 2009 12:37 p.m. PST |
There is a term in publishing for a self-published "labor of love." That term is vanity project. You chose to buy expensive layout and art programs. You chose to spend untold hours becoming competent in them. You could have hired a game layout person for less. You wanted the skill and you deferred the cost over future projects. Are $50 USD game books good for the hobby? Probably not today, retailers are less likely to carry them and they put publishers at financial risk. If the publisher allows their costs to explode it is a serious risk. Are $50 USD books necessary for the hobby? Of course not they are mostly toxic. When 3.0-3.5 books were all banging $40+ the d20 market collapsed taking publishers, distributors, and retailers with them. Lots of game buyers will tell you they want full color. Just like lots of car buyers want Mustang GT convertibles, but they leave with a Focus when they see the bill. If you create your vision of how products should be. The customers will decide if you are correct or is it your vision alone. If your market decides it is too expensive, it is. For publishers to be, the rule for products is 10x cost per unit is MSRP. So, a $50 USD dollar game book should cost you $5 USD a unit. If you create your vision of how products should be. The customers will decide if you are correct or is it your vision alone. If your market decides it is too expensive, it is. All that being said, Sam I hope you are successful and don't lose your shirt. |
Murphy | 29 Nov 2009 12:40 p.m. PST |
We are *Not* rubbing our hands together, thinking: "Ha Ha! A few more pictures of Hussars in pretty uniforms, and I can trick the suckers out of their hard-earned simoleans!" Hmmm
If you haven't said this, then you've never worked for White Dwarf or any other aspect of GW publishing
|
basileus66 | 29 Nov 2009 12:48 p.m. PST |
Quality of the rules themselves is independent of colour layout and glossy paper. And that is what I was trying to say: a good ruleset is good with or without layout
but a good ruleset with a GOOD layout is even better! |
50 Dylan CDs and an Icepick | 29 Nov 2009 12:50 p.m. PST |
[For publishers to be, the rule for products is 10x cost per unit is MSRP. So, a $50.00 USD USD dollar game book should cost you $5.00 USD USD a unit.] There's probably no game publisher other than Slitherine, Battlefront, and GW who have print runs big enough to get the per-unit cost down that low. Most of the smaller publishers have runs of only a few thousand books. If you sell two thousand, you've got a hit on your hands. If you sell only one thousand, then at least you broke even, and the wife will stop asking about it. [I found Evil Gong's La Salle review very helpful as I know to cross that offering off my list of potential purposes.]
In case you're still interested, there are also some reviews on the web which – unlike that one – are based upon having played the game and comprehended the book. |
Connard Sage | 29 Nov 2009 12:55 p.m. PST |
In case you're still interested, there are also some reviews on the web Got links? Don't be shy :) I intend buying Lasalle but not until I've finished a couple of other projects or I shall only get sidetracke
oooh, shiny |
50 Dylan CDs and an Icepick | 29 Nov 2009 1:00 p.m. PST |
|
Connard Sage | 29 Nov 2009 1:03 p.m. PST |
|
AndrewGPaul | 29 Nov 2009 1:28 p.m. PST |
MichaelCollinsHimself, the rules themselves are't the issue. What I'm saying is the quality of the publication gets me interested. Frankly, I'm not concerned about the minutiae of the rules; the WAB rulebook does a much better job of bringing in an outsider to the period than DBA did, and with all the talk of "promoting the hobby" and "historical gamers being a dying breed", perhaps more rules publishers should take that into account. |