New Image Rule?

[Dark-Flux]

Whilst distributer sales figures are only estimates of retail sales, they still show an accurate correlation since no store is going to be upping their orders of books if they cant sell them to customers.
So whilst it doesnt give us exact figures, rising distributer sales means rising retailer sales.

Also the health of the industry isnt directly tied to number of comic stores.
Comic stores could be shutting up but the industry thriving. It simply means readers are getting their books through other means.
Its like complaining that the movie industry is dieing because Blockbuster closed down...

[JFP]

You said the industry is in decline and was unable to provide any actual evidence because its just not the way it is. You can try and provide your anecdotal evidence all you want but most people here understand that means very little compared to actual numbers. It means espescially little coming from a guy who does not feel he has to provide any evidence at all because it "not part of cbr rules". People called you out on not being able to provide any support for your claims and that was your answer. All of the above is your own personal experience which is fine to give, but to put that above actual numbers and facts is redicules and I doubt most people here will fall for that cheap trick to try and cover the fact you dont have a leg to stand on. You say you gave up on me and dark-flux, but the fact is you gave up on providing any facts to back up your claims because non existed. But go on have fun trying to deny reality bacause it does not support your agenda. I was done the moment you said that you dont think you have to provide any evidence because "its not part of cbr rules".

I don't feel the need to provide evidence for what I say based on my own reasons. Which include (but not limited to) the following:
1. You don't need to provide sources for your claims.

For instance, you said on page 2, "Plenty of times these delayes have been announced beforehand or people did not realize that some of these were bi-monthly books. Again some poster confuse ongoing with monthly. Not saying you do but a lot of these threads are full of posters that do."

Where are your sources to back up the claim that "plenty of times" these delays are announced before hand or some were bi-monthly books?

You also said, "Often these creators are not actually payed anything in advance nor do they have "all-expenses paid trip". Espescially not if you are not on of the big a list names. Sure Geoff Johns likely is well taken cared for but that really dont apply to everyone. That is well documented by many creators too. Most of the time these creators are not millionairs or anything close to that. Sure if you get a hit like Walking dead/ get a tv/movie deal you can make some real Money, but that does not happen to everyone and even for those that are lucky, they often have to wait years until it happens."

Where are your sources for your claims these creators are often not paid anything in advance for their trips to conventions? Can you provide sources for you claims that "often" creators have to wait years until they see real money?

This is not to say of the claims you make in the thread where we first argued where you didn't provide sources for your strong claims. Such as when you said, "Also you seem to think that these breaks hurt the title and make people less inclined to pick up the series again whereas the sales numbers just dont support that to any large degree. Sure sales might go a little down for the individual issues but Again that is often not the main focus in the long run so its not really that important."

http://community.comicbookresources....come-out/page3

Where are your sources that series that take breaks don't hurt the title?

2. You provide sources that do not support your claims.

I said, "Why don't you provide actual sales figures of retail stores not Diamond sales figures, Mr. Only the Facts Matter?"

You said, "1. Because they are not available. They have never been available and that is the point. When looking at whether an industry is in decline or not you look at the numbers and the numbers availabld is the same type of numbers that has always been available: Diamond sales."

By your own admittance, your sources do not provide evidence to your claims that retail sales have increased. So why is it okay for you to provide sources that don't support your statements? Is it merely because "these have been the way we've measured comic sales for years"? If someone said crime in Europe is increasing. You asked for sources for the increase of crime in Copenhagen. They gave you a figure for the increase in crime in Stockholm. They said, "We've always calculated crimes in Copenhagen by using Stockholm's data", you'd be okay with this, right? It's okay to use false sources simply because that's what they've used for years?

Another source that doesn't back up claims is when Dark-Flux says there is an increase in comic stores. Dark-Flux refuses to provide an actual source that proves there is an increase in comic bookstores. Instead, he relies on a source that speculates there might be an increase as if that's the same thing. When I call him out on this, he doesn't seem to like it.

3. You yourself have dismissed my desire for sources when I asked you for them. Such as on page 2:

I said, "Can you find me actual quotes from people who said, "All creators delays happens because the creators get bored"? Seriously. Find me quotes where people said this. I'm damn sure I never said all the delays were due to creators getting bored.

You said, "Its right there in the thread yes. And I never said YOU said it, but some did. As far as I remember the only thing you said was you belived most of these creators have procrastninated because of boredom. Which I still disagree with but clearly acknowledged some likely do"

So basically when I ask you for actual quotes to back up your claims, you tell me to look it up myself. But when you ask me for things to back up what I said, you don't like the idea that I tell you to just look it up yourself. Again when I asked you on page 2 of this thread, "Bor, as I asked before, "Where specifically in that thread has anyone said 'All delays are due to the creator getting bored'?" You said yes people in that thread said that. But you have no quoted anyone to back up this claim. I am not talking about other threads. I am talking about that specific thread. Who in that thread has made that statement?"

You said, "Normally I would spend time going through it all Again, but as others have pointed out you seem to ignore actual evidence so I am just going to say if people want to it is right there in the other thread, I am not going to Waste my time. Although I still think its funny you deny while at the same time arguing that this is what Image is thinking and basing their new rule on."

What I find interesting is that you do not like it when I said I don't wanna provide sources because it is not in CBR rules. But you feel it is okay to say you do not wanna provide evidence because, and I quote, "I am not going to Waste my time." So it's okay for you not to provide sources because you feel it's a waste of your time. But it's not okay for me to provide sources because I feel it's a waste of my time. You can say this is an insult but this is the truth: you are a hypocrite. You yourself have refused to provide sources for your claims. Why? Because it's not CBR rules. Now you have a problem with me doing it.

Whilst distributer sales figures are only estimates of retail sales, they still show an accurate correlation since no store is going to be upping their orders of books if they cant sell them to customers.
So whilst it doesnt give us exact figures, rising distributer sales means rising retailer sales.

Also the health of the industry isnt directly tied to number of comic stores.
Comic stores could be shutting up but the industry thriving. It simply means readers are getting their books through other means.
Its like complaining that the movie industry is dieing because Blockbuster closed down...

For your 1st paragraph: only rising retail sales mean rising retails sales. That's all. Distribution sales are not a good indicator of retail sales. Why do you keep saying it is? Look at it this way: a big box store like Target or Walmart wants to sell more Big 2 merchandise, so they order comics. That increases distribution sales. But the big box store isn't making any money. But that's okay because they never expected to and they can afford to take a loss as long as it sells the merchandise. However, if you go by distribution sales, you'll think that retail sales have increased. You see how your perception of distribution sales is skewered significantly if you go solely on distribution sales?

For your 2nd paragraph: Blockbuster is a video rental store, not a video retail store. So your comparison would be apt if BB was a retailer. The decline of comic bookstores is important because that is the main or, for some people, the only source of new physical comics. When the main source for new comics is shutting down, it has a huge impact on the health of the industry. People say digital comics have been taking up those sales. I ask, "If digital comic sales have been huge, why haven't we seen a number of digital stores pop up to challenge comixology's supremacy? If there's money to be made in digital sales, you'd see a huge increase in digital stores, right?"

[Bor]

I don't feel the need to provide evidence for what I say based on my own reasons. Which include (but not limited to) the following:
1. You don't need to provide sources for your claims

Where are your sources to back up the claim that "plenty of times" these delays are announced before hand or some were bi-monthly books?
Its there in the other thread, however I did admit I confused younwith someone elese, because unlike you I have no problem admitting when I am wrong and do stand by my word. You might want to try it sometime.
You also said, "Often these creators are not actually payed anything in advance nor do they have "all-expenses paid trip". Espescially not if you are not on of the big a list names. Sure Geoff Johns likely is well taken cared for but that really dont apply to everyone. That is well documented by many creators too. Most of the time these creators are not millionairs or anything close to that. Sure if you get a hit like Walking dead/ get a tv/movie deal you can make some real Money, but that does not happen to everyone and even for those that are lucky, they often have to wait years until it happens."

Where are your sources for your claims these creators are often not paid anything in advance for their trips to conventions? Can you provide sources for you claims that "often" creators have to wait years until they see real money?
Wow you really dont know anything about the industry you are trying to portray yourself as an expert in do you?mdo I also need to link to where creators talk about how they received no roayalties from their work for the big two? These are so common that I am pretty sure most people know this and if you already hadent set your mind so much on saying the opposite and not standing by anything you say I would gladly have provided links, but no I dont see the resson for it here when you dont want to do the polite thing and do the same with your arguments.

This is not to say of the claims you make in the thread where we first argued where you didn't provide sources for your strong claims. Such as when you said, "Also you seem to think that these breaks hurt the title and make people less inclined to pick up the series again whereas the sales numbers just dont support that to any large degree. Sure sales might go a little down for the individual issues but Again that is often not the main focus in the long run so its not really that important."

http://community.comicbookresources....come-out/page3

Where are your sources that series that take breaks don't hurt the title?
I and others prodid sales numbers that you disregarded.
2. You provide sources that do not support your claims.

I said, "Why don't you provide actual sales figures of retail stores not Diamond sales figures, Mr. Only the Facts Matter?"

You said, "1. Because they are not available. They have never been available and that is the point. When looking at whether an industry is in decline or not you look at the numbers and the numbers availabld is the same type of numbers that has always been available: Diamond sales."

By your own admittance, your sources do not provide evidence to your claims that retail sales have increased. So why is it okay for you to provide sources that don't support your statements? Is it merely because "these have been the way we've measured comic sales for years"? If someone said crime in Europe is increasing. You asked for sources for the increase of crime in Copenhagen. They gave you a figure for the increase in crime in Stockholm. They said, "We've always calculated crimes in Copenhagen by using Stockholm's data", you'd be okay with this, right? It's okay to use false sources simply because that's what they've used for years?
Sigh. I am going to say this one more time and then I am not going to repeat myself again. All regular sales have always, the last few decades, have been measured on diamond sales. So when comparing those numbers yes sales are up. And the reason why sales are even more up is that they do not include other numbers like digital sales which where not even a thing 2 decades ago and other sales revues that werent either. But again its funny how these numbers dont count because you say so even thougj you are both unwilling and incable of providing a counter number.
Another source that doesn't back up claims is when Dark-Flux says there is an increase in comic stores. Dark-Flux refuses to provide an actual source that proves there is an increase in comic bookstores. Instead, he relies on a source that speculates there might be an increase as if that's the same thing. When I call him out on this, he doesn't seem to like it.

3. You yourself have dismissed my desire for sources when I asked you for them. Such as on page 2:

I said, "Can you find me actual quotes from people who said, "All creators delays happens because the creators get bored"? Seriously. Find me quotes where people said this. I'm damn sure I never said all the delays were due to creators getting bored.

You said, "Its right there in the thread yes. And I never said YOU said it, but some did. As far as I remember the only thing you said was you belived most of these creators have procrastninated because of boredom. Which I still disagree with but clearly acknowledged some likely do"

So basically when I ask you for actual quotes to back up your claims, you tell me to look it up myself. But when you ask me for things to back up what I said, you don't like the idea that I tell you to just look it up yourself. Again when I asked you on page 2 of this thread, "Bor, as I asked before, "Where specifically in that thread has anyone said 'All delays are due to the creator getting bored'?" You said yes people in that thread said that. But you have no quoted anyone to back up this claim. I am not talking about other threads. I am talking about that specific thread. Who in that thread has made that statement?"
As I alreadu said Its there if people want to check it out but no I am not going to waste any time on you when you cant even do the polite and descent thing and stand by your own words and provide any proof at all for your claims.
You said, "Normally I would spend time going through it all Again, but as others have pointed out you seem to ignore actual evidence so I am just going to say if people want to it is right there in the other thread, I am not going to Waste my time. Although I still think its funny you deny while at the same time arguing that this is what Image is thinking and basing their new rule on."

What I find interesting is that you do not like it when I said I don't wanna provide sources because it is not in CBR rules. But you feel it is okay to say you do not wanna provide evidence because, and I quote, "I am not going to Waste my time." So it's okay for you not to provide sources because you feel it's a waste of your time. But it's not okay for me to provide sources because I feel it's a waste of my time. You can say this is an insult but this is the truth: you are a hypocrite. You yourself have refused to provide sources for your claims. Why? Because it's not CBR rules. Now you have a problem with me doing it.
Yes I am not going to waste my time on someone who like you that denies actual facts and feels he is above providing ANY at all. And once again you stoop to name calling because you have nothing else to provide at all.
For your 1st paragraph: only rising retail sales mean rising retails sales. That's all. Distribution sales are not a good indicator of retail sales. Why do you keep saying it is? Look at it this way: a big box store like Target or Walmart wants to sell more Big 2 merchandise, so they order comics. That increases distribution sales. But the big box store isn't making any money. But that's okay because they never expected to and they can afford to take a loss as long as it sells the merchandise. However, if you go by distribution sales, you'll think that retail sales have increased. You see how your perception of distribution sales is skewered significantly if you go solely on distribution sales?
Its like hitting my head against the wall but I am going to repeat myself. Unless you think comicbook stores have become a lot worse at ordering comics the last 20 years then yes it does work as an indication
For your 2nd paragraph: Blockbuster is a video rental store, not a video retail store. So your comparison would be apt if BB was a retailer. The decline of comic bookstores is important because that is the main or, for some people, the only source of new physical comics. When the main source for new comics is shutting down, it has a huge impact on the health of the industry. People say digital comics have been taking up those sales. I ask, "If digital comic sales have been huge, why haven't we seen a number of digital stores pop up to challenge comixology's supremacy? If there's money to be made in digital sales, you'd see a huge increase in digital stores, right?"

There are and have been other sources for digital comics. Comixology just won out on a lot of these bcause of various factors such as a more popular apps for apple and android.

If your claim of the industry being in decline why does all evidence point against it? If you werent so stuck on pushing your aganda you would have admitted that instead of trying to shift focus on all matters that are unrelated.
Notice how no one agrees with you or is jumping to your defence? There is a reason for that.

Also can I just remark that I find it funny that you have no problem trying to provide "evidence" when it comes to attaking other and tvist their Words, but it is only inconvinient for you to provide anything when it comes to backing up your own views? Isnt that funny how that worked out?

[Dark-Flux]

I don't feel the need to provide evidence for what I say based on my own reasons. Which include (but not limited to) the following:
1. You don't need to provide sources for your claims.

For instance, you said on page 2, "Plenty of times these delayes have been announced beforehand or people did not realize that some of these were bi-monthly books. Again some poster confuse ongoing with monthly. Not saying you do but a lot of these threads are full of posters that do."

Where are your sources to back up the claim that "plenty of times" these delays are announced before hand or some were bi-monthly books?

If a book isnt solicited it doesnt have a release date in the first place.
If your trying to label a book as monthly its up to you to provide the evidence to support your claim.
The evidence thats says theyre not is every single solicit in which the word "monthly" is never used.

You also said, "Often these creators are not actually payed anything in advance nor do they have "all-expenses paid trip". Espescially not if you are not on of the big a list names. Sure Geoff Johns likely is well taken cared for but that really dont apply to everyone. That is well documented by many creators too. Most of the time these creators are not millionairs or anything close to that. Sure if you get a hit like Walking dead/ get a tv/movie deal you can make some real Money, but that does not happen to everyone and even for those that are lucky, they often have to wait years until it happens."

Where are your sources for your claims these creators are often not paid anything in advance for their trips to conventions? Can you provide sources for you claims that "often" creators have to wait years until they see real money?

As said, its a well documented facet of Images business model. Go ask any creator.
Its like asking for proof that water is wet. No proof is needed because it a well documented established fact. You being ignorant of how Image works doesn't change this and its up to you to do your research before making your claims, not demand that others bring you the information.

2. You provide sources that do not support your claims.

I said, "Why don't you provide actual sales figures of retail stores not Diamond sales figures, Mr. Only the Facts Matter?"

You said, "1. Because they are not available. They have never been available and that is the point. When looking at whether an industry is in decline or not you look at the numbers and the numbers availabld is the same type of numbers that has always been available: Diamond sales."

By your own admittance, your sources do not provide evidence to your claims that retail sales have increased. So why is it okay for you to provide sources that don't support your statements? Is it merely because "these have been the way we've measured comic sales for years"? If someone said crime in Europe is increasing. You asked for sources for the increase of crime in Copenhagen. They gave you a figure for the increase in crime in Stockholm. They said, "We've always calculated crimes in Copenhagen by using Stockholm's data", you'd be okay with this, right? It's okay to use false sources simply because that's what they've used for years?

Yes, because its the only and therefore best data that is available. If we're trying to determine a correlation on the state of the industry by comparing sales data year by year then the same data should be analysed, which has always been distribution sales. And since thats the money that goes to the publishers that put out the content, its relevant data.
Again, you're linking the state of the industry with money made by retailers, instead of the publishers and creators.

Another source that doesn't back up claims is when Dark-Flux says there is an increase in comic stores. Dark-Flux refuses to provide an actual source that proves there is an increase in comic bookstores. Instead, he relies on a source that speculates there might be an increase as if that's the same thing. When I call him out on this, he doesn't seem to like it.

I already addressed this but i guess I will do again...
The source is speculative, its simply second hand. Its not ideal, or even completely trustworthy admittedly, but that doesn't mean the opposite of what its suggest but therefore automatically be true as you seem to assume. And its better than anicdotal evidence which ultimately is way to obtuse to be relevant.

For your 1st paragraph: only rising retail sales mean rising retails sales. That's all. Distribution sales are not a good indicator of retail sales. Why do you keep saying it is? Look at it this way: a big box store like Target or Walmart wants to sell more Big 2 merchandise, so they order comics. That increases distribution sales.

Not if theyre stocking newsstand copies which arnt distributed by Diamond and thus wont be shown in their reported sales data. And this most likely is what they are ordering since thats what newsstand editions are for.

But the big box store isn't making any money. But that's okay because they never expected to and they can afford to take a loss as long as it sells the merchandise. However, if you go by distribution sales, you'll think that retail sales have increased. You see how your perception of distribution sales is skewered significantly if you go solely on distribution sales?

No because the sales data records the number of units shifted per title, not money made per title so the sales data for both distribution and retail sales would still correlate regardless of the money being made.

For your 2nd paragraph: Blockbuster is a video rental store, not a video retail store. So your comparison would be apt if BB was a retailer.

'aite/ "The videogame industry is in decline because EB Games closed up."

The decline of comic bookstores is important because that is the main or, for some people, the only source of new physical comics. When the main source for new comics is shutting down, it has a huge impact on the health of the industry.

How? Sales are up regardless.

People say digital comics have been taking up those sales. I ask, "If digital comic sales have been huge, why haven't we seen a number of digital stores pop up to challenge comixology's supremacy? If there's money to be made in digital sales, you'd see a huge increase in digital stores, right?"

Off the top of my head:

Google Books
iBooks
Amazon Kindle Store
Marvel Unlimited
Image Digital Store Front
Dark Horse Digital Store Front
Scribd
Comics Plus
Drive Thru Comics
MadeFire
Comixfix

Its also not an apt comparison as when it comes to digital media as its more convenient for customer to have their content managed through a single storefront.
Like how PC Gaming is dead physically but thriving digitally. Bar far the largest digital distributor is Steam, a single entity.

Plus its not just digital sales but general online sales. Sites like Amazon, DCBS etc...

[JFP]

Bor, I am just pointing out that you definitely have refused to provide sources when asked. It's hypocritical for you to condemn me for refusing to provide sources when asked. If you find it acceptable for yourself, then you should find it acceptable for me.

Dark-Flux, I already stated I'm not going to do the copy and paste thing. Not because I don't want to answer your post. But because I find it too difficult to answer posts that copy and paste like that. I know you find it easy to do. But I find it confusing and too time consuming. Sorry.

[Bor]

Bor, I am just pointing out that you definitely have refused to provide sources when asked. It's hypocritical for you to condemn me for refusing to provide sources when asked. If you find it acceptable for yourself, then you should find it acceptable for me.

Dark-Flux, I already stated I'm not going to do the copy and paste thing. Not because I don't want to answer your post. But because I find it too difficult to answer posts that copy and paste like that. I know you find it easy to do. But I find it confusing and too time consuming. Sorry.

JFP: really that is your response after several posts of insults and name calling? I have provided facts or referenced facts provided by other people. I even acknowlegded when I was wrong, something you refuse to do because you still are trying to shift focus because you have nothing and noone to back you up. Have fun with that.
At this point all I have seen you do is:

1. Deny available facts while at the same time deny proving any yourself because " its not in the cbr rules"

2. Resort to name calling whenever you felt like it

3. And doing it while having a tag that says "still winning".

Its getting really hard to accept that you are not a troll.

[sven]

JFP operates like a Trump supporter. Feels over facts.

[JFP]

JFP: really that is your response after several posts of insults and name calling? I have provided facts or referenced facts provided by other people. I even acknowlegded when I was wrong, something you refuse to do because you still are trying to shift focus because you have nothing and noone to back you up. Have fun with that.
At this point all I have seen you do is:

1. Deny available facts while at the same time deny proving any yourself because " its not in the cbr rules"

2. Resort to name calling whenever you felt like it

3. And doing it while having a tag that says "still winning".

Its getting really hard to accept that you are not a troll.

Dude, I'm gonna say this one last time. You were the first one to refuse to provide sources when I asked you. Fact. That's not a lie. That's the truth.

Do not refuse to provide sources for what you say, then get mad at someone who does the exact same thing.

[Bor]

Dude, I'm gonna say this one last time. You were the first one to refuse to provide sources when I asked you. Fact. That's not a lie. That's the truth.

Do not refuse to provide sources for what you say, then get mad at someone who does the exact same thing.

Dude that is just a lie. Go back and look. You were asked to provide evidence for any of your claims and you denied that even before your refusual to provide it because its not "in the cbr rules".. So no that is not the truth. But nice try. My refusual to find more sources came after you continued to present your view, which goes against common opion and numbers, as fact and again and again said the industry is in decline despite nothing to support that claim.

So I am going to say this one more time: All you have done is refuse to provide anything that supports your unsupported claims, resort to namecalling several times, and deny anything that goes against your own personal agenda. On top of that every time you have tried to make an argument or statement and people have pointed out the flaws in it, you either ignore it or try to spinn it. Like apparently not understanding that there is a difference between the industry being the greatest it has ever been and then been in decline.

Do not state unfounded facts like they are truths and then get mad when people call you out on it.

[JFP]

Dude that is just a lie. Go back and look. You were asked to provide evidence for any of your claims and you denied that even before your refusual to provide it because its not "in the cbr rules".. So no that is not the truth. But nice try. My refusual to find more sources came after you continued to present your view, which goes against common opion and numbers, as fact and again and again said the industry is in decline despite nothing to support that claim.

So I am going to say this one more time: All you have done is refuse to provide anything that supports your unsupported claims, resort to namecalling several times, and deny anything that goes against your own personal agenda. On top of that every time you have tried to make an argument or statement and people have pointed out the flaws in it, you either ignore it or try to spinn it. Like apparently not understanding that there is a difference between the industry being the greatest it has ever been and then been in decline.

Do not state unfounded facts like they are truths and then get mad when people call you out on it.

8/27/2016: You reused to provide sources when asked. Here's yer quote. It's post #26 of this thread:

Normally I would spend time going through it all Again, but as others have pointed out you seem to ignore actual evidence so I am just going to say if people want to it is right there in the other thread, I am not going to Waste my time.

http://community.comicbookresources....age-Rule/page2

On 9/9/2016, I refused o=to quote sources from this thread:


Regarding your responses. If I give you a source for the things I said, are you gonna believe them? I noticed you and capuga frequent the Image messageboard. I assess that you two have an agenda: never to say anything negative about Image. Since you appear to be the type of fanboys who never question the creators, I don't think anything I say can have an effect. It's not in your agenda to question creators. So what's the point of this argument?

http://community.comicbookresources....ng-to-Portland

My refusal to provide sources when asked came around 2 weeks after your refusal. Unless you can provide evidence where I was asked to provide sources then refused before then, I think you were the first one to refuse to provide sources.

[Bor]

8/27/2016: You reused to provide sources when asked. Here's yer quote. It's post #26 of this thread:

Normally I would spend time going through it all Again, but as others have pointed out you seem to ignore actual evidence so I am just going to say if people want to it is right there in the other thread, I am not going to Waste my time.

http://community.comicbookresources....age-Rule/page2

On 9/9/2016, I refused o=to quote sources from this thread:


Regarding your responses. If I give you a source for the things I said, are you gonna believe them? I noticed you and capuga frequent the Image messageboard. I assess that you two have an agenda: never to say anything negative about Image. Since you appear to be the type of fanboys who never question the creators, I don't think anything I say can have an effect. It's not in your agenda to question creators. So what's the point of this argument?

http://community.comicbookresources....ng-to-Portland

My refusal to provide sources when asked came around 2 weeks after your refusal. Unless you can provide evidence where I was asked to provide sources then refused before then, I think you were the first one to refuse to provide sources.

I love how you try do deny the existens of the other thread here. I dont have an agenda of protecting Image or anything like that at all and if had bothered to look around you would have seen that. Although yet again you resort to name calling as if that proved anything. Although I do love the fact that your opinion apparently is above providing evidence of any kind when it comes to numbers but when it comes to attacking others poster you do try, badly but still, you try. Class act man. I have both praised and condemmed creators and publishers in the past, but you appear to only condem them and refuse to accept anything that does fit with your own unfounded views. Have fun with that. Glad to see you are "still winning"

[Bor]

If a book isnt solicited it doesnt have a release date in the first place.
If your trying to label a book as monthly its up to you to provide the evidence to support your claim.
The evidence thats says theyre not is every single solicit in which the word "monthly" is never used.



As said, its a well documented facet of Images business model. Go ask any creator.
Its like asking for proof that water is wet. No proof is needed because it a well documented established fact. You being ignorant of how Image works doesn't change this and its up to you to do your research before making your claims, not demand that others bring you the information.



Yes, because its the only and therefore best data that is available. If we're trying to determine a correlation on the state of the industry by comparing sales data year by year then the same data should be analysed, which has always been distribution sales. And since thats the money that goes to the publishers that put out the content, its relevant data.
Again, you're linking the state of the industry with money made by retailers, instead of the publishers and creators.



I already addressed this but i guess I will do again...
The source is speculative, its simply second hand. Its not ideal, or even completely trustworthy admittedly, but that doesn't mean the opposite of what its suggest but therefore automatically be true as you seem to assume. And its better than anicdotal evidence which ultimately is way to obtuse to be relevant.



Not if theyre stocking newsstand copies which arnt distributed by Diamond and thus wont be shown in their reported sales data. And this most likely is what they are ordering since thats what newsstand editions are for.



No because the sales data records the number of units shifted per title, not money made per title so the sales data for both distribution and retail sales would still correlate regardless of the money being made.



'aite/ "The videogame industry is in decline because EB Games closed up."


How? Sales are up regardless.



Off the top of my head:

Google Books
iBooks
Amazon Kindle Store
Marvel Unlimited
Image Digital Store Front
Dark Horse Digital Store Front
Scribd
Comics Plus
Drive Thru Comics
MadeFire
Comixfix

Its also not an apt comparison as when it comes to digital media as its more convenient for customer to have their content managed through a single storefront.
Like how PC Gaming is dead physically but thriving digitally. Bar far the largest digital distributor is Steam, a single entity.

Plus its not just digital sales but general online sales. Sites like Amazon, DCBS etc...

Btw JFP your lack ofresponse to any of Dark-flux points here is a good example of where when people provide things that goes against your view you either completely ignore them or come with excuses like "its to hard to quote".

It might seem like I am attacking you but the point is that when you have a view that goes against the norm and people asks you to provide evidence and your only response is "I dont have to provide anything because its not in the rules" then there really is no reason accept anything you say. If you cant even bother to back up your majority viewpoint with anything other then name calling and insults then why should anyone care what you say? I already went back and found a qoute for something you said you hadnt said and I acknowledged where I was wrong. You on the other hand kept on with the name calling. Again: you claim the industry is im decline despite all available numbers saying otherwise. Whether the industry is doing better in Japan, the big two dominates the industry in America or your refusual to acknowledge the growing digital sales market has done nothing to change that.

And with that I think we should end our interaction and perhaps just put each other on ignore. I have no doubt that if we go on you will end up throwing more and more insults my way and I likewise dont doubt that if I have to read more of your posts I will do the same. I will wait to see if you have a last response for that is actually worth reading before doing it but considering our previous interaction I highly doubt it.

[JFP]

I love how you try do deny the existens of the other thread here. I dont have an agenda of protecting Image or anything like that at all and if had bothered to look around you would have seen that. Although yet again you resort to name calling as if that proved anything. Although I do love the fact that your opinion apparently is above providing evidence of any kind when it comes to numbers but when it comes to attacking others poster you do try, badly but still, you try. Class act man. I have both praised and condemmed creators and publishers in the past, but you appear to only condem them and refuse to accept anything that does fit with your own unfounded views. Have fun with that. Glad to see you are "still winning"

Page 6, post #87, Bor said, "because unlike some I have not problem admitting when I am wrong."

Looks like he was wrong when he called me a liar and said I was the first one to refuse to provide sources.

Let's see if Bor can be honest and admit he was wrong.

[Bor]

Page 6, post #87, Bor said, "because unlike some I have not problem admitting when I am wrong."

Looks like he was wrong when he called me a liar and said I was the first one to refuse to provide sources.

Let's see if Bor can be honest and admit he was wrong.

No I already gave an example of where you lied with a qoute from you. Not to mention all the times you have lied about what I think and attempted to shift focus because you made some statements that had nothing to support them.
Lets see if JFP can act in a non trollish way:Nope didnt think so.
But thank you proving my point expertly about the way you post. Still looking forward to see you actually adressing the points brought up by Dark-flux and others because so far the only thing you have done is ignore it because you didnt want to do the whole "qouting long posts" suddenly after having done it for quite a few post.
Again its funny that happens to you when people provide points that goes against your various claims.

[JFP]

No I already gave an example of where you lied with a qoute from you. Not to mention all the times you have lied about what I think and attempted to shift focus because you made some statements that had nothing to support them.
Lets see if JFP can act in a non trollish way:Nope didnt think so.
But thank you proving my point expertly about the way you post. Still looking forward to see you actually adressing the points brought up by Dark-flux and others because so far the only thing you have done is ignore it because you didnt want to do the whole "qouting long posts" suddenly after having done it for quite a few post.
Again its funny that happens to you when people provide points that goes against your various claims.

So you can refuse to provide evidence when requested and see nothing wrong with it. But when I refuse to provide evidence when requested 2 weeks later, you have a problem with it?

You say you want honesty and don't have a problem admitting when you're wrong. When proven wrong, you refuse to admit you're wrong and dishonestly continue to say I'm the one who refused to provide evidence when requested first despite the fact that there is proven evidence you were the first one to refuse to provide evidence?