Re: [Ogf-l] "Shared-Source"

[John Nephew]

Maggie,   > The open movement is new.    Sure, but it's a new verse in an old song.  As far as volunteer/fan/non-profit/not-for-profit, I just don't see it being any more of an issue than it ever has been; this is not a new or unusual threat or something to get worked up about.   The game industry has long been inhabited by a certain group of folks who essentially create and publish as charity, sometimes unintentionally.  I am speaking of publishers who produce lavish games with incredible production values, because they live off an inherited trust fund and so can operate for years without a profit (or with a profit on paper that accumulates as unsold inventory that is ultimately written off); or publishers who, say, produce lavish and unprofitable games with the winnings from another market niche (e.g., Everway done with the winnings of Magic); or publishers who produce incredible works of art as a labor of love because they are willing to live on less than minimum wage (always your option when you are self-employed) and/or have a spousal income for support; or publishers who make unviable products with production values they can't afford simply because of incompetence and an inability to do math.  Every company in the past that was launched by someone blowing his life savings on another D&D clone, however quickly it crashed and burned, represented a threat to the companies trying to make a go of this business as a viable, stable, ongoing venture.  Someone spent dollars on those games that could have been spent on a viable company's products instead.   Now, mind you, I've benefitted from some of these companies, buying games like Feng Shui and Ars Magica after their previous publishers invested a great deal in them for considerable losses.  To some degree, those unprofitable investments still benefitted us, even as we've continued to publish those games on a realistic budget.  We got a boost from the "non-profitable" publishing that happened before we took the reins.   The same effect can be seen in the game industry in the form of retailers who go out of business at an incredible rate, after buying products full-price (supporting publishers).  Then other retailers buy up the inventory for pennies on the dollar in bankruptcy.  But still, the stores trying to operate as a serious business have to face off against part-timers, web businesses run out of mom's basement, hobbyists who retired on their stock options who want to run a game store for fun, etc.   So it goes.   > I did not suggest that the government should control prices.  > I suggested that they might need to redefine some of their > business regulations in open communities.   It amounts to the same thing, much as the Federal Reserve does not actually control interest rates, but through its regulatory power influences the supply and demand from whence interest rates spring.  And for shorthand, they announce a "target" and everyone just cuts to the chase by setting that as the rate.  In other words, to a greater or lesser degree, regulation does control prices.   ------------------------------------------------------ John Nephew    voice (651) 638-0077 fax (651) 638-0084 President, Atlas Games             www.atlas-games.com