Don't get me wrong. They were doing an excellent job so far and they have an amazing game. But even big companies even with big sales/marketing department drop the ball once in a while and they did it with the Tantive, that's it, no big deal. Hopefully for the next huge ship they go back with something like the transport!

I don't think they did drop the ball. They used the transport as a mechanism to get people interested in epic play. They made the tantive specifically for epic play. If they'd included a small ship or something with it, they'd have pushed its price up even more. A couple of crew cards that play in regular games is a very small compromise to reward those that invested in it.

I hope they follow exactly the same model with imperial huge ships.

They could have push the price to $90 USD suggested retail price and include another small ship and they would have sell even more of the kit. I respect your opinion but I think that they did drop the ball on that one, they could have made more money and have satisfied more customers who were on the fence about buying it .

Heh you bought one and I did not bought o

ne and you bought yours on special too ;-)

And they have to balance it out with the number who may very well drop the game because of such practices. I mean, the Tantive IV pack was already $90, adding a ship with a lot more cards would've probably pushed it beyond $100. Looking at the justifiable anger over the Transport, it is easy to predict that many would not be happy with such a scheme on something much more expensive.

I have a counterfactual question for most of the people in this thread, prompted by the large number of people who seem distressed by the inclusion of upgrades usable in the 100-point game with the Tantive IV. Suppose you are responsible for design decisions at FFG. You have these two options, which are mutually exclusive and exhaustive:

(A) Include some number of upgrades usable in the 100-point skirmish game.

(B) Make all upgrades compatible only with the Epic formats.

From the perspective of maximizing the value to players of that $90 investment, which one do you choose and why?

One thing to consider into all this is that in business you do not price an item solely based on your cost but on the perceived value by the customer.

The Tantive did not cost them a lot, they could have easily sold this 50$ and they would have still made a lot of profit. They are pricing it at 80$ suggested retail price, because the ship is bigger, the more plastic argument is bull ****. The transport was 60$ of course the expected value by the customer would be more. So they priced it accordingly. The Decimator 10$ more over a Falcon or Outrider because it is a bigger ship is again based on perceived value. They said that it is the biggest of the large ship. So they priced it at 40$.

They could have easily priced the Tantive with a small based ship at 90$ suggested retail and they would have made even more profit because they would have sell more of it.

One thing I've found in FFG's stuff that I really like is the fact that you know exactly what you're getting when you buy a booster. A big reason I abandoned Magic (aside from the fact that I preferred to take my girlfriend at the time out instead with that money) was that you could buy a booster pack, blind, mind you, and not get a single worthwhile card. I'll take FFG over WotC any day of the week. If I don't want something, I don't feel compelled to buy it.

One thing I've found in FFG's stuff that I really like is the fact that you know exactly what you're getting when you buy a booster. A big reason I abandoned Magic (aside from the fact that I preferred to take my girlfriend at the time out instead with that money) was that you could buy a booster pack, blind, mind you, and not get a single worthwhile card. I'll take FFG over WotC any day of the week. If I don't want something, I don't feel compelled to buy it.

Same thing for me here, having played MtG, SW CCG and L5R,I would never ever have started to play this game if again I would have had to rely on luck and randomness of the booster packs for getting good cards.

Umm, Jagd, last I checked, the Tantive IV has a MSRP of $90. And, really, I would be hesitant to call the MSRP suspect without access to the information that the volume and weight of the full package affects shipping. I also imagine that the Tantive IV was a smaller production run than the standard wave, which would affect the price.

Same thing for me here, having played MtG, SW CCG and L5R,I would never ever have started to play this game if again I would have had to rely on luck and randomness of the booster packs for getting good cards.

I always found the random aspect of MtG to be pretty underhanded as a marketing tool. It was an ingenious approach, but shows zero regard for the customer. I've abandoned WotC altogether, and that includes D&D.

One thing to consider into all this is that in business you do not price an item solely based on your cost but on the perceived value by the customer.

The Tantive did not cost them a lot, they could have easily sold this 50$ and they would have still made a lot of profit. They are pricing it at 80$ suggested retail price, because the ship is bigger, the more plastic argument is bull ****. The transport was 60$ of course the expected value by the customer would be more. So they priced it accordingly. The Decimator 10$ more over a Falcon or Outrider because it is a bigger ship is again based on perceived value. They said that it is the biggest of the large ship. So they priced it at 40$.

They could have easily priced the Tantive with a small based ship at 90$ suggested retail and they would have made even more profit because they would have sell more of it.

So your expertise in marketing tells you, with your very little knowledge of the actual situation, that the people with access to FFG's production numbers, customer information, focus groups, etc. are wrong. That's, uh, interesting.

But here's what really has me curious: is it your expertise in materials and manufacturing that tells you the square-cube law is also wrong?

What can I tell you is that for having worked in a sport company that we were manufacturing all of ou products in China, the final retail price had little to do with the actual cost of making the product itself.

I am not saying that the Tantive does not cost more to make, of course it cost more. I am just saying that I personally think that they could have put a small base ship included in the Tantive and priced it at 90 to 100$ sugg retail and would have sell more than only a Tantive at 80$ that's it. You can disagree if you want! ;-)

The volume of plastic alone must be 100 times that of an x wing blister. There is more card stock accessories than in the core set. The packaging is massive, and then you have the increase in labour to paint the thing.

I found the tantive incredibly good value for what you get. From the included campaign, to the new energy allocation strategy, it adds a lot to the game. I can appreciate that it's maybe not for everyone, but don't be bitter because those of us that are enjoying it got a few cards for our investment! I've no doubt that 3po will turn up in another pack before long. And as someone else stated, it's only right that 3po, r2 and leia were included with it - it was the opening scene of the opening movie after all...

I have a counterfactual question for most of the people in this thread, prompted by the large number of people who seem distressed by the inclusion of upgrades usable in the 100-point game with the Tantive IV. Suppose you are responsible for design decisions at FFG. You have these two options, which are mutually exclusive and exhaustive:

(A) Include some number of upgrades usable in the 100-point skirmish game.

(B) Make all upgrades compatible only with the Epic formats.

From the perspective of maximizing the value to players of that $90 investment, which one do you choose and why?

Include upgrades compatible with the 100 point skirmish game. Epic is a new format and 80 dollars is a big investment. If you want to sell as many models as possible, you have to entice players to play the new format. But, while you will always sell some amount of models, with that pricetag a lot of players will be on the fence. Including things that they can use in the current format brings them over that fence. Especially if they're also very good cards.

Just because I'd love alternative methods of getting those cards doesn't mean I don't understand the business choices.