Well, if FFG was charging less, they would not be able to employ as many people, who can then turn around and pay for the services that employ you.

The economy is circular.

This is something nearly everyone seems to forget when discussing the economy. Thank you.

For those of us on limited incomes, this is an expensive hobby, but we are usually pretty adept at squirreling away a few bucks to support our habit. Hmmm... sounds like we're akin to drug addicts...

That's hardly a fair comparison. Drug addicts generally kick their habits long before we do, and then they tour schools to warn younger generations while we sit there telling the kids how great it is and offering to teach them.

"The first game is free but after that you'll have to buy your own figures."

Being serious for a moment, I think I legally count as living in poverty right now and I'm still finding money for X-Wing, and will be setting aside enough to give Armada a try when it comes out.

Ugh, I hate seeing these discussions, it always goes the same run around of fallacies. Both sides end up being right and wrong.

Look, on the one hand, there is zero moral or ethical imperative for FFG to make a game any given person should be able to afford. They are a business, their job is to maximize profit. It isn't unethical to make expensive products, even if you want them. From this perspective, it really doesn't matter that there is a wealth disparity, or that you can't afford it. People with money deserve to have nice things to spend money on too, even if you can't afford them. Hot toys doesn't need to make affordable Boba Fett figures because there is a niche and demand for high end products, and SOMEONE is going to make products for it. FFG can, and SHOULD be making the occasional high end product to take advantage of that market niche. If there is demand for a 100$, or even a 1000$ game, FFG may as well be the ones to cash in on it. Heck, I would rather FFG make the money because I like them and trust them. Their success with the license is my opportunity to get more awesome things. Companies don't need to make things you can afford.

ON THE OTHER HAND: FFG definitely risks LOSING MONEY and limiting their potential player base by making a game at too. THIS IS A VALID CONCERN! Again, I would LIKE FFG to be successful, and I have a vested interest in Star Wars Armada being successful. More players means more people to play against, more expansions, and more cool ships for me. I want them to do well. If FFG sets the price point for the game too high the game very well may not succeed the way X-Wing did, and I DO have a vested interest in that because I WANT a fun, successful, long lived capital ship game to play. This is the first real, deep SW capital ship game of its kind, something I've been wanting for literally decades. If FFG handles it poorly we may not see another one for 20 more years, if ever. So I want them to do well. And so I hope that they have priced it well, because if they are charging too much, and the barrier of entry is to high, I'm not going to get the awesome game I want.

Both sides are correct. And both sides are incorrect. There is no moral imperative, or ethical imperative for FFG to make an affordable game. But the idea that "It's a hobby and a luxury, if you can't afford it that isn't their problem" is equally flawed, because the concern isn't "can I afford it". The concern is "I can afford it, but I want it to do well because that increases the value of my purchase".

And FFG is definitely right on the line for this one. The price point is very understandable for what you are getting. But if this were any other company (except maybe GW) I would say it was too high and they were sabotaging the growth potential of the game. But FFG may just have built up enough of a fan base for X-Wing that they can get people to buy in to a full on, heavy miniature war game. I guess we'll see. I hope they are right, because I have been waiting for this for SO long, and I want it to do well.

That said, pricing people on limited budgets out of the market is pretty stupid too.

What's stupid is to price their products at a point that they can't pay their employees and still make a profit.

What's also stupid is to think they should price their products based on what someone on a limited budget can pay. They like every other company prices their product based on the cost of making said product, plus a profit margin, which is based on what the market can bare. $100 for a starter set is not by any means outrageous. Most starter sets cost that much if not a bit more.

If that price is too high for them to sell their product that means either the cost is too high, or the demand is too low.

is too expensive for gamers who have no such disposable income.

Gamers by definition have disposable income, if they didn't they wouldn't be gamers. Miniature games are expensive, that's just a fact, if someone can't afford to play that's not the fault of anyone really.

FFG! shut up and take my money! i love you! =)

The price point is very understandable for what you are getting. But if this were any other company (except maybe GW) I would say it was too high and they were sabotaging the growth potential of the game.

Price is based purely on what the market will bare, and the cost of making the product + profit margin.

I figured out what the likely price of the models in the Armada starter set was in a different thread. I figure a conservative price is likely $90-100. So once again you're really only paying for the cost of the models themselves, and getting dice, cards, tokens, and rules for free.

Compare that to games like 40k's Dark Vengeance, in which you still have to buy the codexes at $30-50 per. Yes I know DV comes with more models. But I don't consider having more models to be inherently better, in terms of game play, just means you have more plastic on the table.

Here's the price of expansions based on the size of the model the cost of X-Wing stuff.

VSD = $30-40

Neb = $20

Vette = $15

Fighter Squads $2.50 per for $25 for all 10.

Hello there,

My gaming budget being fairly limited, I have not played the original game (but would like to), and this one seems very appealing indeed.

My question is: would it be viable for FFG to release the game (rules, cards, tokens, etc) without the starships miniatures? How much would the price drop be?

I'm pretty sure I would take the plunge if the price reaches an average non-miniature game price..

I understand playing without the miniatures would take a good chunk of the fun away.

But there are some alternatives, like papercraft versions of these ships (just google "star wars miniature papercraft", you'll be amazed).

No, because the miniatures are what allows FFG to charge so much, thus make more money. It's why X-wing is never going to see card only expansions.

No, because the miniatures are what allows FFG to charge so much, thus make more money. It's why X-wing is never going to see card only expansions.

I actually disagree, I think they could turn quite a profit by selling just card expansions. The cards cost dirt to make so they can mark them up pretty easily for a profit.

I think there would be room for the two versions of this game:

- The "spectacular" miniatures version, for conventions, demos, plastic enthusiasts, and all players wanting an over the (table)top experience

- The "barebones" card-only version, for a more compact game, aimed at lighter budgets, but still offering the tactical experience (and as I said, papercrafting can play a role here)

As it's been stated already, FFG already makes a profit with the miniature version, and could also make one with the card-only version.

And buying standalone miniatures could help gamers step up from "barebones" to "spectacular" ... everybody wins ?

No, because the miniatures are what allows FFG to charge so much, thus make more money. It's why X-wing is never going to see card only expansions.

I actually disagree, I think they could turn quite a profit by selling just card expansions. The cards cost dirt to make so they can mark them up pretty easily for a profit.

My question is: would it be viable for FFG to release the game (rules, cards, tokens, etc) without the starships miniatures? How much would the price drop be?

I'm pretty sure I would take the plunge if the price reaches an average non-miniature game price..

FFG don't have the liscence to make Star Wars board games, only card games, RPGs and miniatures games. If the game does not have miniatures, isn't a card game or an RPG then they would be violating their licence and would be likely sued to all hell by Disney and Hasbro (who I believe own the board game licence). I am sure FFG would love to produce board games if they could, but they can't (though being FFG they wouldn't exactly be cheap board games).

My question is: would it be viable for FFG to release the game (rules, cards, tokens, etc) without the starships miniatures? How much would the price drop be?

I'm pretty sure I would take the plunge if the price reaches an average non-miniature game price..

FFG don't have the liscence to make Star Wars board games, only card games, RPGs and miniatures games. If the game does not have miniatures, isn't a card game or an RPG then they would be violating their licence and would be likely sued to all hell by Disney and Hasbro (who I believe own the board game licence). I am sure FFG would love to produce board games if they could, but they can't (though being FFG they wouldn't exactly be cheap board games).

Oh, That changes things quite a bit!

I suppose the X-Wing cards alone don't qualify for the "Card game" category, as the game mechanism doesn't solely rely on the cards, but the ships as well.

What am I going to do with the Imperial paper fleet I've been building, then ?

Thank you for the info.

Ugh, I hate seeing these discussions, it always goes the same run around of fallacies. Both sides end up being right and wrong.

Look, on the one hand, there is zero moral or ethical imperative for FFG to make a game any given person should be able to afford. They are a business, their job is to maximize profit. It isn't unethical to make expensive products, even if you want them. From this perspective, it really doesn't matter that there is a wealth disparity, or that you can't afford it. People with money deserve to have nice things to spend money on too, even if you can't afford them. Hot toys doesn't need to make affordable Boba Fett figures because there is a niche and demand for high end products, and SOMEONE is going to make products for it. FFG can, and SHOULD be making the occasional high end product to take advantage of that market niche. If there is demand for a 100$, or even a 1000$ game, FFG may as well be the ones to cash in on it. Heck, I would rather FFG make the money because I like them and trust them. Their success with the license is my opportunity to get more awesome things. Companies don't need to make things you can afford.

ON THE OTHER HAND: FFG definitely risks LOSING MONEY and limiting their potential player base by making a game at too. THIS IS A VALID CONCERN! Again, I would LIKE FFG to be successful, and I have a vested interest in Star Wars Armada being successful. More players means more people to play against, more expansions, and more cool ships for me. I want them to do well. If FFG sets the price point for the game too high the game very well may not succeed the way X-Wing did, and I DO have a vested interest in that because I WANT a fun, successful, long lived capital ship game to play. This is the first real, deep SW capital ship game of its kind, something I've been wanting for literally decades. If FFG handles it poorly we may not see another one for 20 more years, if ever. So I want them to do well. And so I hope that they have priced it well, because if they are charging too much, and the barrier of entry is to high, I'm not going to get the awesome game I want.

Both sides are correct. And both sides are incorrect. There is no moral imperative, or ethical imperative for FFG to make an affordable game. But the idea that "It's a hobby and a luxury, if you can't afford it that isn't their problem" is equally flawed, because the concern isn't "can I afford it". The concern is "I can afford it, but I want it to do well because that increases the value of my purchase".

And FFG is definitely right on the line for this one. The price point is very understandable for what you are getting. But if this were any other company (except maybe GW) I would say it was too high and they were sabotaging the growth potential of the game. But FFG may just have built up enough of a fan base for X-Wing that they can get people to buy in to a full on, heavy miniature war game. I guess we'll see. I hope they are right, because I have been waiting for this for SO long, and I want it to do well.

Well said. Of course there is not a "moral... or ethical imperative for FFG to make an affordable game." They can be filthy greedy all day long if that is their choice. No one - well, at least not me - is suggesting otherwise.

That said, it's poor business design in the current economic climate to crank out games at the price point they are demanding. I'm sick to death of hearing Games Workshop whining comparisons. Games Workshop has one niche product with multiple lines and people have been complaining about their business practices and price models for 30 years.

The Warhammer lines are for hobby enthusiasts who love sci-fi and fantasy games and love painting. The company gets away with how they do what they do for that reason. The Warhammer brands are not general public games.

On the other hand, FFG has a broad range of solid games and game licenses to work from, and to set their price point so high is holding them back from growing a larger customer base. It's just common sense.

Which would be better from a profit standpoint - 10,000 customers who spent an average of $500 or 200,000 who spent an average of $100? Yes they have to cover their costs, and that is completely understandable. But there are a lot of other ways to do that than just by gouging the product straight out.

They may not be losing any money on what they sell but they have left even more on the table by doing things this way.

But in order to reach that cheaper price point, they have to sacrifice quality. Is that "money left on the table" worth FFG sacrificing their reputation? FFG has high standards, and it shows.

Wizkids doesn't give a **** about their reputation. Heroclix is cheap, and it shows. But even then, their costs are increasing. It's actually kind of insulting comparing the quality of X-wing miniatures to Attack Wing miniatures at the same cost.

You also have to release they are not chasing the CMG market. It may seem like it, because Star Wars is popular. But the CMG market has pretty much died, mainly due to the increase of costs of manufacturing plastic miniatures in China. This isn't a CMG, and to expect it to cost the same as a CMG is wrong. Compare it to the various other miniature games out there. Yes, this points to Games Workshop games, but also things like Wings of War.

And really, all you need to do is look at the extreme shortages X-wing initially had to see where FFG was looking at sales wise. X-wing easily did 2-3 times more than their greatest hope were. So they know what the limits the price points present. And they seem to be fine with it. It is okay to produce something that is a bit more niche.

But if they dropped the price of this particular game down to $50, they'd lose their shirts and we'd all end up with nothing in the end.

[EDIT: oops, ninja'd by sithborg]

Price is based purely on what the market will bare, and the cost of making the product + profit margin.

I figured out what the likely price of the models in the Armada starter set was in a different thread. I figure a conservative price is likely $90-100. So once again you're really only paying for the cost of the models themselves, and getting dice, cards, tokens, and rules for free.

Compare that to games like 40k's Dark Vengeance, in which you still have to buy the codexes at $30-50 per. Yes I know DV comes with more models. But I don't consider having more models to be inherently better, in terms of game play, just means you have more plastic on the table.

Here's the price of expansions based on the size of the model the cost of X-Wing stuff.

VSD = $30-40

Neb = $20

Vette = $15

Fighter Squads $2.50 per for $25 for all 10.

Again, I didn't say the the price was too much or unfair for what you are getting. I think they are likely making a very innovative and high quality product, that is very much worth the price they are charging. I also noted I think it is very possible that due to the popularity of X-Wing, this price point might not be too high because there is such high levels of interest in the product. Finally, I also specifically said there was nothing wrong with producing a niche product. Those markets exist and should be catered too.

I'm not really sure what you are trying to convince me of here. You are just restating arguments I already made.

But in order to reach that cheaper price point, they have to sacrifice quality. Is that "money left on the table" worth FFG sacrificing their reputation? FFG has high standards, and it shows.

Wizkids doesn't give a **** about their reputation. Heroclix is cheap, and it shows. But even then, their costs are increasing. It's actually kind of insulting comparing the quality of X-wing miniatures to Attack Wing miniatures at the same cost.

You also have to release they are not chasing the CMG market. It may seem like it, because Star Wars is popular. But the CMG market has pretty much died, mainly due to the increase of costs of manufacturing plastic miniatures in China. This isn't a CMG, and to expect it to cost the same as a CMG is wrong. Compare it to the various other miniature games out there. Yes, this points to Games Workshop games, but also things like Wings of War.

And really, all you need to do is look at the extreme shortages X-wing initially had to see where FFG was looking at sales wise. X-wing easily did 2-3 times more than their greatest hope were. So they know what the limits the price points present. And they seem to be fine with it. It is okay to produce something that is a bit more niche.

Again, this is EXACTLY the point I made in my post. The reason for the concern is understandable, because if they have set their price point too high by making too ambitious of a game, it could hurt the success of the game overall, which means we don't get as long running and fun a game.

But in order to reach that cheaper price point, they have to sacrifice quality. Is that "money left on the table" worth FFG sacrificing their reputation? FFG has high standards, and it shows.

Wizkids doesn't give a **** about their reputation. Heroclix is cheap, and it shows. But even then, their costs are increasing. It's actually kind of insulting comparing the quality of X-wing miniatures to Attack Wing miniatures at the same cost.

You also have to release they are not chasing the CMG market. It may seem like it, because Star Wars is popular. But the CMG market has pretty much died, mainly due to the increase of costs of manufacturing plastic miniatures in China. This isn't a CMG, and to expect it to cost the same as a CMG is wrong. Compare it to the various other miniature games out there. Yes, this points to Games Workshop games, but also things like Wings of War.

And really, all you need to do is look at the extreme shortages X-wing initially had to see where FFG was looking at sales wise. X-wing easily did 2-3 times more than their greatest hope were. So they know what the limits the price points present. And they seem to be fine with it. It is okay to produce something that is a bit more niche.

But if they dropped the price of this particular game down to $50, they'd lose their shirts and we'd all end up with nothing in the end.

[EDIT: oops, ninja'd by sithborg]

Of this particular game, yes. As I, and numerous others, have mentioned, the price for this particular game, as it was designed, is very reasonable. But there are a lot of ways the game could have been designed, many of which could have been cheaper without sacrificing quality, though it would have necessarily sacrificed scope. FFG went with a very ambitious design. Big, scaled mini's with lots of innovative, new features, and very robust rules. I think it looks like a beautiful and exciting game, and the price point is in no way unreasonable for a full on war game of this scope.

That being said, they also could have designed a less ambitious game. It wouldn't have to be of lesser quality, but it could have been of lesser scope. They could have aimed for a 50$ price point and made a product to match it, which would have allowed more gamers to get involved. It is possible this could have made for a more successful game, but it is also possible the the quality and scope increase of the product they designed will overcome the price point.

That's certainly my hope, and I suspect FFG made a good choice. I would rather play this game than one of diminished scope, and I think that the interest in X-Wing indicates lots of others are too. But only time will tell. I'm just trying to point out some of the fallacious arguments that are being made (on both sides) and hoping to see them die off a bit. Discussions about wealth disparity, FFG ignoring the poor gamer, not being able to afford it, not having to buy it, and FFG servicing niche markets are not really useful in any way.

They already have a product at the price range you are talking about: X-wing. I think X-wing showed that they could do something a bit more ambitious, and still have a level of success.

The $100 price point is right in line with other big-box miniature tabletop games I've seen (Zombicide and its large expansions, Rivet Wars, Mice & Mystics), and as such, I don't see an issue with the price, nor do I think that FFG needs to cater to the lower income gamers.

I have to pick and choose which games I play based on how much they cost, just like everyone else, but I don't feel the need to say the companies have a moral responsibility to cater to my income. I would also like to own a Porsche 918, but I can't afford it, and I won't demand that Porsche lower the price on it to match my income.

Edit: Typo corrected

That said, it's poor business design in the current economic climate to crank out games at the price point they are demanding.

Your lack of basic understanding of how prices are set is astounding. You really seem to think that FFG is attempting to gouge people with Armada.

and to set their price point so high is holding them back from growing a larger customer base.

Yeah that's why FFG has such issues meeting demand for X-Wing stuff, because the price point is so high.

I guess I was wrong above, you do honestly believe that FFG is gouging people...

Common sense dictates that a company will set the price at a point that will mean max sales, at X% of profit. X will vary depending on the product they're selling, starter sets are going to have a much lower profit margin, because they'll make up the difference in selling expansions.

You honestly believe you know better what the price point should be, rather then a massively successful company like FFG, one who, unlike you actually knows the cost of producing the starter set in the first place.

It's actually kind of insulting comparing the quality of X-wing miniatures to Attack Wing miniatures at the same cost.

Yeah, that if nothing else has kept me from even considering STAW.

I'm not really sure what you are trying to convince me of here. You are just restating arguments I already made.

Wasn't really, just using your post as a spring board for mine. I agree with you and your points.

I would rather play this game than one of diminished scope, and I think that the interest in X-Wing indicates lots of others are too.

Well as Sithborg points out, they already have a game of diminished scope, X-Wing. I don't think you could really do a Cap ship game and have it be much smaller in scope/scale.

The $100 price point is right in line with other big-box miniature tabletop games I've seen (Zombicide and its large expansions, Rivet Wars, Mice & Mystics), and as such, I don't see an issue with the price, not do I think that FFG needs to cater to the lower income gamers.

I have to pick and choose which games I play based on how much they cost, just like everyone else, but I don't feel the need to say the companies have a moral responsibility to cater to my income. I would also like to own a Porsche 918, but I can't afford it, and I won't demand that Porsche lower the price on it to match my income.

Nicely put.

Ultimately, it is a budget question: mine, and FFG's.

The way a company navigates through the dangers and treasures of an open market is evidently affecting its customer base.

Intelligent/successful companies take into account the market reaction, expectations and potential (our money).

FFG does that quite effectively.

On the other hand, the way I can or not afford something is my problem, and only affects me. So I agree that crying "Too expensive!" is not going to change FFG's strategy; and it should not.

I just see they poured a lot of love and energy into this game, and I know I will play it eventually. When I'm ready.

As for the increasing price of games (which is not FFG's prerogative), isn't this just the reflection of the growing popularity of board games ?

I'm just happy with the massive selection of new games to choose from every year.

I would rather play this game than one of diminished scope, and I think that the interest in X-Wing indicates lots of others are too.

Well as Sithborg points out, they already have a game of diminished scope, X-Wing. I don't think you could really do a Cap ship game and have it be much smaller in scope/scale.

When I say diminished scope I don't mean scope of the battle, I mean scope of the rules and the mini's. You could make (and there have been) capital ship skirmish games much cheaper than this one. And FFG could have tried to make a capital ship game of similar scope to X-Wing: smaller mini's, less innovative rules and components, etc.

That being said, I'm glad they are not doing that. As you and Sithborg point out, we already have a beer and pretzels, affordable, hour long game level miniature game set in Star Wars: X-Wing. While they COULD have made something similar for cap ships, I'm glad they didn't. I'm excited for a deeper, more complex capital ship game which is a very distinct experience from X-Wing.

When I say diminished scope I don't mean scope of the battle, I mean scope of the rules and the mini's. You could make (and there have been) capital ship skirmish games much cheaper than this one.

Very true. I'd say the new maneuver template itself most likely costs more then a whole set of X-Wing templates do. So there is a case of design increasing the cost.

I'm excited for a deeper, more complex capital ship game which is a very distinct experience from X-Wing.

Me too although in a odd change of pace for me. I don't think I'll be buying a ton of Armada stuff. I think I'll stick to mostly OT stuff as well. As long as I have enough stuff for a good sized battle, I don't think I'm going to worry so much about having enough stuff to make 10+ lists for each side.

We do not know for a fact how much $$$ it will be but if x-wing is a guideline it is not that bad.

You do naot NEED to buy every singel model to play and if you got some models you can play with some poor fellow who cannot buy the game for him self...