Ok, true you didn't miss it, just lumped it together with nasty move which I feel is unfair. You are correct that we don't know what the secondary market will be, which to me goes both ways. We don't know it will be bad either, so why all the fighting and hate about it?

There is a fine line between being a good business move, and ripping off your fans. As usual with everything in life, most people are on either end of the teeter totter,the truth is in the middle.

With the Transport people used to split them. Then again, people bought multiple transports.

This being said, Team Epic does allow two Raiders (assuming 3EP)...

I also notice nobody is complaining about the number of StarVipers they'll need for all the Accuracy Correctors...

I'll complain about the starviper if you want. I hate that ship and I angling to have to but one!!

:huffs away:

With the Transport people used to split them. Then again, people bought multiple transports.

This being said, Team Epic does allow two Raiders (assuming 3EP)...

I also notice nobody is complaining about the number of StarVipers they'll need for all the Accuracy Correctors...

But that's because everyone can agree that the star viper is sexy. End of discussion.

I'll complain about the starviper if you want.

That's actually a case where I'm putting my money where my mouth is, as it were. I'm not buying a single Starviper or IG-88, which means I'll be missing out on some rather nice upgrades.

Cuse the Starviper is FUGGGGLY!

But rather than call FFG a bunch of names, accuse them of gouging or reporting them to the BBB, I'm just going to live without those upgrades, or find some other way to get them.

So... The raider isn't a reasonable value? Yes I changed my mind and read the rest.

The Raider is very much a reasonable value, it is not taking advantage of anyone, it is not price gouging.

While it may not be what some people want to buy, that does not change the value of the package itself. The CR-90 cost $90 and a ship of the same size with the Advanced costs $99, that means a $5 reduction.

Things in the box which you're never going to use certainly does change the value. Remember, value is based on the benefit you get from it, not the cost of whatever's in the box. That's why value can vary from person to person. If FFG packaged the Raider with a $200 snowboard for $300, the Raider becomes a very bad value because I'm never going to use that snowboard, which means I'm effectively paying $300 for a $100 ship.

Your math in the second bit ignores the second possible side, too - that the CR90 was overpriced in the first place. Why could that be? Not saying it is, but at least one possibility is that they expected to sell fewer because of the higher price and no standard ship. This is a pretty standard approach - Privateer does it with Warmachine. Warcasters/Warlocks are more expensive than comparable models largely because you only ever need one, which means the volume isn't there to spread out all the other costs.

As for your bundling argument and cable. I don't get cable because wouldn't get the value out of it. I don't rail against the cable company online where it is ineffective. I vote with my wallet and find other ways (ie Netflix) to get my content...do I Miss out on some stuff? Yes. Do I consider the system immoral or nasty? No...I just don't get the value I would require.for the money I spend.

And that's fine for you. Many people think we should work to improve things for consumers. Consumers expressing their opinion to companies is one way to do that. If Raider sales are 10% below the CR90, is it because more people play Rebel? Because the Corvette is a more recognizable screen ship? Because C-3PO? <shrug> Who knows. "Vote with your wallet" is a good way to choose between competing products, but it's an absolutely horrible way to change a company's behavior.

So people let them know. They tell them in email, they express concerns here, they give them an earful when they corner them at conventions. On the cable side there are advocacy groups doing the work for you, and if you ever have the option for unbundled cable it certainly won't be because you chose to give your $20 a month to Netflix instead of Time Warner or Comcast.

But if that's the route you want to take, that's well and truly fine. Seriously - it is. What I'm astonished by is the idea that the people who dislike this move are wrong. That we shouldn't be allowed to push FFG to do better for us as consumers. That our absolute only choice is to eat it, or hope eBay has enough, or... well, no other "or", really. If you're happy with the compromises you have to make because of cable bundling, fine - but telling other people they can't work to change it? I truly do not understand that.

So... you do realize that there's not actually any additional value in there for you, right? That you're paying exactly the same for that ship and cards as you would if they were in some other package that didn't include an $85 ship that a lot of people don't want? It's not like they said "Hey, we need to package this Raider at $100. So, that's set. But wait! Let's add another ship and a bunch of cards to fix it... Great idea, Bob! But wait, we can't change the price... That's fine, just put them in there for free, our customers will appreciate the added value!"

Value is essentially benefit divided by cost. Which is precisely the point here - you're getting the exact same value by buying them both as you would if they were separate. But people who don't play Epic are getting far LESS value, because the benefit is lower for exactly the same cost. When you consider that the value we're discussing is basically the repair of a ship which was already purchased but proved pretty useless, the value proposition gets worse.

Nobody's a socialist. Nobody expects to get it for free. What they expect is a reasonable value in the product, which is (despite the twisted "Anything corporations do is good capitalism!" memes) exactly what consumers in a capitalistic system are supposed to do.

you're attempting to define value. That is a mistake. Any good marketing manager will tell you that you cannot define value, because value is highly subjective in the eyes of the consumer purchasing the product. Benefit divided by cost is also is another completely subjective term and what it sounds to me that you are doing is assigning YOUR values and the benefits you perceive through the product's features and assuming that because for your it doesn't add up, it doesn't add up anywhere, and that is simply wrong.

Additionally, while you cannot determine value, you can create a value-add — which is typically something that is added to the product that is designed to entice people to buy the product. It's extremely effective with products like this, where maybe it will sell more to tournament players because it has an advance, probably an upgrade or two that is good (although that is subjective and not confirmed) and the advanced title and fix.

This doesn't seem slimy or underhanded, it seems like intelligent marketing.

Ill sum up the counter to this entire thread with this simple statement:

Companies are not non-profit entities, and "profit" is not a curse word.

As for me, i don't even have an advanced. ill pick up Vader at some point, just to have him, and have the Advanced in the Raider's box, however i will probably sell a few of those upgrades on ebay and recoup 10 or 15 dollars of the cost of the set, maybe even more depending on what the auctions bring.

in terms of the star viper, the accuracy corrector is a sensor upgrade, and there aren't too many ships that can have that upgrade, and many of the ones that CAN have it probably wont take it because of more useful other gear, so for me, i will probably get two, just because i want them, along with the IG 2000, and the most wanted pack, but really, i don't see myself going too heavy into SV.

Although i might buy a few M-35's that would be good too, and i need to pick up a HWK....

damnit, its happening again...

Good ole FFG!

I'll complain about the starviper if you want.

the Starviper is FUGGGGLY!

The starrviper is fugly? I don't like you anymore.... Lol.

I also notice nobody is complaining about the number of StarVipers they'll need for all the Accuracy Correctors...

Well, let's consider why that might be:

1. People have largely accepted the process of buying ships they don't want in order to get upgrades they do.

2. A $20 vs. $100 price tag is a big difference

3. People who don't play epic see zero value in the Raider, while most players of the standard game see potential use for the Star Viper.

I think it's a different enough situation that the different reactions are pretty reasonable.

That said, I suspect you're going to see more discontent with this due to the third (and any additional) faction split. X-wing's distribution model forces people into buying both sides. I think that's going to become less tolerated as Scum splits to a faction a lot of players don't recognize or want.

you're attempting to define value. That is a mistake. Any good marketing manager will tell you that you cannot define value, because value is highly subjective in the eyes of the consumer purchasing the product. Benefit divided by cost is also is another completely subjective term and what it sounds to me that you are doing is assigning YOUR values and the benefits you perceive through the product's features and assuming that because for your it doesn't add up, it doesn't add up anywhere, and that is simply wrong.

Actually, this is precisely the point I was trying to make to Vanor. Vanor had claimed that the value in the box was static regardless of how much someone wanted the different pieces. My point was exactly what you say here - that it's personal, and that the value of the Raider's box would be much lower for someone who had no desire to play epic.

I am not trying to convince anyone that the Raider is a bad value for those who want it. What I am trying to point out is that it is a bad value for those who don't - which is a point that Vanor was disputing. He was effectively trying to apply his value perception as applicable for everyone. So, thanks for the support.

This doesn't seem slimy or underhanded, it seems like intelligent marketing.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Things in the box which you're never going to use certainly does change the value.

Ok, perhaps I'm using the wrong term, but the point stands. If the CR-90 is worth $90 with everything that it came with, then the Raider is also worth that much since it is the same basic thing.

How much it may be worth to a given person isn't relevant to the price that FFG charges.

Add to it a Tie Advanced that retails for $15 but only increase the cost by $10, and you're getting value added to the package. The added value may not rise to level of the cost of the package, but it doesn't change that value is in fact added.

What I'm astonished by is the idea that the people who dislike this move are wrong.

I don't believe I've ever said anyone is wrong for not liking it. I said they're wrong for calling it price gouging or unfair treatment. I do believe that many of us have pointed out other ways to get these upgrades. Or that they are likely to be released in another package down the road.

I didn't see anyone blasting El_Tonio for making a reasonable post about why he doesn't like it.

It seems there are a few broad arguments here:

1. It's a nasty move, but that's capitalism so suck it up

2. It's a nasty move, but I'm buying it anyway so I'm not affected and really don't care

3. It's a nasty move, but you don't have to buy it

4. It's a nasty move, but you can get the stuff you want off eBay

5. It's a nasty move, and I wish they'd do something that wasn't so nasty

I'm not sure why so many people seem so offended by #5, but here we are. Regardless, there does seem to be a bit of a common trend in the arguments. Maybe there's something there...

Nah, couldn't be. Please, continue bashing anyone who doesn't like being FFG's doormat. It really does seem to be what this community is best at these days.

With respect, You missed one:

6. There will be plenty of ways to get ahold of these cards that don't include buying a raider, or spending anywhere near that amount of money.

Why are people so afraid that there won't be tons of these cards to be bought off of friends/eBay/team cov.?

4 in the box means a lot of extras for a lot of people. I realize that this isn't super ideal for everyone, but it is far from being a **** move on FFGs part. The real problem is just too much hyperbole on everyone's part on these forums.

There won't be plenty of ways. There will be the secondary market and no guarantee that the cards will be available or if they are that they will be priced fairly or in stock locally (important), as has been discussed.

You cannot possibly argue from the basis of these assumptions. The only guaranteed way to acquire these cards is to buy the package, unless FFG does change things (which is extremely unlikely).

These cards will also not be available in another package. Why would they be? Was C3PO? It's how they sell the epic ships. There is scant chance they will be prize support (and if they are it won't be for a very long time). Some cards appear in multiple expansions,but not with epic ships. I think it's wishful thinking at best.

With the Transport people used to split them. Then again, people bought multiple transports.

This being said, Team Epic does allow two Raiders (assuming 3EP)...

I also notice nobody is complaining about the number of StarVipers they'll need for all the Accuracy Correctors...

It's my understanding 2 are in each pack. I am fine with that. That's a fair amount. No expansion can contain everything in amounts to satisfy everyone.

Things in the box which you're never going to use certainly does change the value.

Ok, perhaps I'm using the wrong term, but the point stands. If the CR-90 is worth $90 with everything that it came with, then the Raider is also worth that much since it is the same basic thing.

How much it may be worth to a given person isn't relevant to the price that FFG charges.

You're presenting this like it's some sort of inevitability - that the only way the Advanced fix could have been distributed is as part of a $100 package. But it's not. FFG is well aware that the value to different people will vary for something like this - that's their entire point in packaging standard-play cards in Epic ships. It's designed to entice consumers into spending money on a bad value. Sco77y thinks that's intelligent marketing, but I prefer slimy and underhanded.

And contra TIE Pilot, this could easily have been part of an Aces pack, even with all 4 pilots in there. Standard ships have come with 2-3 unique pilots each since the very beginning. The idea that it's somehow impossible to put a fourth in a big box like an Aces pack, or that an Aces pack wouldn't have done just fine with only unique 3 Advanced pilots instead of 4, doesn't really hold up.

These cards will also not be available in another package. Why would they be? Was C3PO? It's how they sell the epic ships.

History of this game has proved you wrong on this point.

Here's a list of upgrades that have appeared in more than one expansion.

Recon Specialist

Fire Control System

Outmaneuver

Flechette Torpedoes

Advanced Sensors

Ion Cannon

Ion Pulse Missiles

Munitions Failsafe

Proton Bombs

Gunner

Mercenary Copilot

Heavy Laser Cannon

Then there's all the upgrades that have 2 copies in a package with a single ship

Ruthlessness

Tactical Jammer

Countermeasures

So yes in fact, based on FFG's track record we can expect to see the Tie Advanced fix in another package at some point. Did you honestly expect to see C-3PO in another pack about 6 months after the CR-90 was released?

You're presenting this like it's some sort of inevitability - that the only way the Advanced fix could have been distributed is as part of a $100 package.

I am doing no such thing. I'm presenting this as the way FFG is doing it. I even said above that there is likely to be another package at some point with these cards in it. The least you could do is read my posts as they're written and not try and apply some sort of RAI to them.

The fact that you think it's slimy or understanded doesn't change things any more than I think it's a good value and a good business decision.

@Bukharin (forgive me if I butchered that...on my phone)

Fair enough...but I am going to disagree worn your assertion that voting with my wallet won't change anything. There are tons of people out there...who do exactly what I am doing, and that number is growing and that number is growing every day. The companies are taking notice...they may not be doing anything yet but they are taking notice. If enough people vote with their wallets corporate behaviors do change. I by myself can't do much...but me and 1000000 other people not buying from them at all? That can.

I don't feel you guys are necessarily wrong in being unhappy with this move...everyone has their own opinion and I can understand disappointment. But keep in mind, the while argument began with someone calling this move "anti poor people" and accusing the company of "price gouging" "taking advantage of consumers" and "being unfair". Inflammatory language tends to set the other side off...and the results are not pretty. Especially when reasonable responses are ignores outright... Signoftheserpent has been all over the place with his argument and has contradicted himself at least once...I'll leave my response to him till I get home as I hate typing long winded things on my phone. But I am sure you can see why most people got defensive...

signoftheserpent, you think that there being a secondary market that's accessible is wishful thinking, whereas I think you believing there wont be is incredibly presumptive. you don't know if there will or wont be extras to get, neither do I, the difference is I'm not jumping in a forum for the company and the game blasting around words like rip off. wait and see. there was a big problem with getting all the advanced sensors everyone wanted for their Bwings, when they only came with the shuttles no one wanted 4 of. Then they came out with a future expansion, maybe C3P0 will also, who knows. the point is, if you want to run around raging about how the company is treating you without the product even coming out yet and seeing how it will shake out.... expect to take some heat. I'm not trying to be contrary, im just trying to show you that there are more angles to this than you (and a lot of others on both sides of this debate) seem to be giving credit to.

That we shouldn't be allowed to push FFG to do better for us as consumers.

You're, uh, not. (edit: *pushing FFG)

If you want to complain to FFG itself, then the way to do that is with the Customer Service things on the website.

With the Transport people used to split them. Then again, people bought multiple transports.

This being said, Team Epic does allow two Raiders (assuming 3EP)...

I also notice nobody is complaining about the number of StarVipers they'll need for all the Accuracy Correctors...

For me personally, the StarViper comparison is at the root of why I am upset w/this move.

I'm not complaining about having to get the StarViper to get ACs because the ACs are not mandatory for the Advanced to be viable. They're very nice upgrades and are likely the better choice in most circumstances for the generic pilots, but the ATC is still a viable choice across the board for the Advanced, and if you have the x1 title you very likely also have ATCs to go with it. Thus, ACs are option so I'm alright w/paying extra for that extra option. It's the same reason I don't gripe about 3PO; the Falcon is still a good ship w/o him. Maybe it's not optimal, but it's still very viable.

There is literally no reason to ever drop a TIE Advanced on the table if you are playing competitively and you do not have the cards out of the Raider pack. It is designed so badly that it is completely non-viable. Up until these upgrades were announced it was widely regarded as the single worst ship in the entire game of X-Wing. Putting the fix in an epic ship is a brilliant move for the bottom line, since it is essentially holding every single TIE Advanced hostage. If you ever want to use this ship you already paid for as more than a decoration, shell out for the most expensive expansion X-Wing has ever had. That's what burns.

It is designed so badly

Slow down a second there before you start hating on the designers. The Advanced is from Wave 1. Cut them some slack, they had no idea what the meta'd look like. They didn't even know blocking was a thing.

If you ever want to use this ship you already paid for as more than a decoration, shell out for the most expensive expansion X-Wing has ever had. That's what burns.

It's fair enough if you weren't planning on getting a Raider. I think the divide is this topic is between people who plan on getting Raiders and people who don't. I wasn't much of a fan of the Transport/X-wing bundling, and the X-wing is probably what ultimately sold it when I found it for cheap on Amazon. That being said, I don't regret getting the transport: huge ships are insanely fun, the completely unarmed transport oddly being one of the most fun. I suspect a lot of people who are currently unhappy who do buy the Raider for the cards will try that Raider out (obviously, you paid for it after all!) and slowly come to regret buying that Raider less and less.

It is designed so badly

Slow down a second there before you start hating on the designers. The Advanced is from Wave 1. Cut them some slack, they had no idea what the meta'd look like. They didn't even know blocking was a thing.

"Don't say it's designed badly - they did EVERYTHING badly"? Odd defense

@Bukharin (forgive me if I butchered that...on my phone)

Fair enough...but I am going to disagree worn your assertion that voting with my wallet won't change anything. There are tons of people out there...who do exactly what I am doing, and that number is growing and that number is growing every day. The companies are taking notice...they may not be doing anything yet but they are taking notice. If enough people vote with their wallets corporate behaviors do change. I by myself can't do much...but me and 1000000 other people not buying from them at all? That can.

The problem with this idea is the difficulty of deciphering the actual intent. That's the point I was trying to make. If the only possible consumer response is "Just don't buy it", there's only one signal to be had despite multiple possible intents. So what happens if a lot of people do what you suggest, vote with their wallets, and the Raider has horrible sales? Will FFG read it as a protest over charging people $100 for a bug fix? Or will they decide that maybe Epic just isn't a thing, that the only reason the Tantive sold so well was because it was iconic, and abandon epic completely?

So yes, this would undoubtedly change behavior. But what would that change be? If you're actually a fan of epic, you should be as upset with anyone over this, because it may push people into a backlash. Honestly, I've been waffling - I'll probably still get one, because I expect the rest of the crew to be good and it is pretty, but I'm very turned off by how far FFG is taking the upsell. "Buy one more A-wing you don't want to get that third Push the Limit" I could live with. "Hey, here's the long-awaited fix for the ship we messed up two years ago, and you have to pay $100 for it!" is really pushing the limits (pun intended).

That we shouldn't be allowed to push FFG to do better for us as consumers.

You're, uh, not. (edit: *pushing FFG)

If you want to complain to FFG itself, then the way to do that is with the Customer Service things on the website.

We know the designers, at the very least, pay attention here. We also know that people interact with them directly. It may be up for debate, but putting ideas like this where they'll see it seems more likely to have an impact than a report filed by a bottom-level customer service rep.

"Don't say it's designed badly - they did EVERYTHING badly"? Odd defense

Wave 1 isn't badly designed, it's designed without wide scale gameplay feedback data.

It is designed so badly

Slow down a second there before you start hating on the designers. The Advanced is from Wave 1. Cut them some slack, they had no idea what the meta'd look like. They didn't even know blocking was a thing.

If you ever want to use this ship you already paid for as more than a decoration, shell out for the most expensive expansion X-Wing has ever had. That's what burns.

It's fair enough if you weren't planning on getting a Raider. I think the divide is this topic is between people who plan on getting Raiders and people who don't. I wasn't much of a fan of the Transport/X-wing bundling, and the X-wing is probably what ultimately sold it when I found it for cheap on Amazon. That being said, I don't regret getting the transport: huge ships are insanely fun, the completely unarmed transport oddly being one of the most fun. I suspect a lot of people who are currently unhappy who do buy the Raider for the cards will try that Raider out (obviously, you paid for it after all!) and slowly come to regret buying that Raider less and less.

Fair point on the designer hate. It is unfair, particularly since I doubt they make the marketing decisions. It's just bitterness over the fact that (no matter how you slice it) the problems the Advance has are FFG's fault, and they want to charge a premium price to correct their own mistake.

As far as the divide goes, that seems to be exactly how this is breaking down. For the people who are interested in epic play, combining the Raider and the Advanced is a great value. For the people who aren't, it's horrible because the value of all of the epic items in the box is effectively zero. There's no utility there for us. We're just paying $100 for a new TIE/ad model and the cards to fix our existing ones. That works out to $21 per Advanced (more than the cost of the ship itself), since there's enough in the box to fix 4 (3 more + the 1 that comes in the box). Contrast that w/the A-Wing fix that was $5 per A-Wing fixed, even if nothing else in the box had value to you (and the A-Wing wasn't even as broken as the Advance to begin with).

Some folks may find it an hook to get into epic play. That's one of the primary things FFG is counting w/this move, trying to push people into at least dabbling in the format to help sell some of their more expensive models. Personally, if I want to play capital ships, I'll play Armada, where they can be done right w/o having to integrate w/dogfighting gameplay. Epic has zero appeal to me, and having a Raider won't change that. All it will do is potentially recoup some (certainly not all) of the premium price it heaped on to my TIE Advance fix when I hock it.