If I could I wouldn't buy anything from China, but that's impossible these days

I agree, but that ship sailed long ago, for many, many reasons.

As a small-mid business owner myself, I have to disagree with you.

I think you're missing the point why people are getting upset with new releases like this. Let's look at C3P0 for example. It was released exclusively on a $90 msrp ship and made things like the fat han a thing. While it is true you can buy the card single, C3P0 still goes for $30-40 on ebay. That's around 50% if not more the cost of the entire ship (on ebay). Now maybe c3p0 was an accident. Maybe it wasn't. But what it did do was walk dangerously on that pay-to-win line that no body wants. To this point, FFG has done a very good job keeping the game balanced while offering enough 'perceived' value to limited release cards (TLT, AT, etc).

It's generally not in FFG's best interest to alienate their existing customer base in such an outrageous way. Higher prices but less sold depending on elasticity. But there is an exception.

What if (HYPOTHETICAL!) it was determined that if they shifted to a random booster pack model, they would lose 75% of existing players but would quadruple their profits? Aside from the inherent risk of not really knowing the future, by your logic, profits are motive and thus no one has any right to be upset for being left in the cold.

I realize that's extreme and not likely to happen, at least in the near future. But it's not to say a similar redesign can't happen.... ie see Age of Sigmar, to some extent at least.

I do have faith that FFG will appropriately manage the game significantly better than GW does. What keeps something like that from happening though (in error at least) is FFG's ability to gauge the market to try and predict the future. One way to do that is market research, which I can guarantee you that they use these forums in part to do so (however small a part that actually is, we don't know). So people voicing their concerns is a good thing. Maybe it's only from a small minority of customers, maybe it's not. But to tell people to shut up and just give FFG their money, that's another matter.

The problem isn't FFG, they make great games. It's the fans, specifically Star Wars fans, the most critical and hard to please fans in the world. (Sorry that should be impossible to please). And it's hard to run a business when you are sitting in front of a computer in your mom's basement complaining about how your plastic toy is 'broken' because it's overcosted by 1-2 points in an imaginary game economy.

This is probably the single worst attitude a person can take, so everyone take note... "Yeah, it's not the business that has a problem, it's the people that perpetuate the business that have a problem..." Wrong headed from the start... I'm not even sure I understand the next line, but invoking the mythical "Moms-basement-dwelling-low-life-son-who-spends-all-day-arguing-on-the-internet" caricature takes you from a point of authority on a subject by saying you run a small business to a point of zero credibility... I'm sure that that person exists somewhere and plays X-Wing, but off the top of my head, the people I know that play X-Wing all have their own homes and careers they enjoy... I personally work in a civil engineering field, I spend a lot of my days on construction sites with a hard hat on walking around with a set of plans and talking to various contractors... I'll also be one of the first people to argue that C-3PO is undercosted by maybe 3 points for what he does...

So unless I completely missed the point of your last statement, which is 100% possible, try to present your points without fallaciously bringing up stereotypical caricatures meant to cast people who do certain things in a terrible light... Don't blame people that consume a product for critiquing said product on a literal forum that FFG gives people to do so... Get real...

The problem isn't FFG, they make great games. It's the fans, specifically Star Wars fans, the most critical and hard to please fans in the world. (Sorry that should be impossible to please). And it's hard to run a business when you are sitting in front of a computer in your mom's basement complaining about how your plastic toy is 'broken' because it's overcosted by 1-2 points in an imaginary game economy.

This is probably the single worst attitude a person can take, so everyone take note... "Yeah, it's not the business that has a problem, it's the people that perpetuate the business that have a problem..." Wrong headed from the start... I'm not even sure I understand the next line, but invoking the mythical "Moms-basement-dwelling-low-life-son-who-spends-all-day-arguing-on-the-internet" caricature takes you from a point of authority on a subject by saying you run a small business to a point of zero credibility... I'm sure that that person exists somewhere and plays X-Wing, but off the top of my head, the people I know that play X-Wing all have their own homes and careers they enjoy... I personally work in a civil engineering field, I spend a lot of my days on construction sites with a hard hat on walking around with a set of plans and talking to various contractors... I'll also be one of the first people to argue that C-3PO is undercosted by maybe 3 points for what he does...

So unless I completely missed the point of your last statement, which is 100% possible, try to present your points without fallaciously bringing up stereotypical caricatures meant to cast people who do certain things in a terrible light... Don't blame people that consume a product for critiquing said product on a literal forum that FFG gives people to do so... Get real...

I'll go ahead and add that one need not actually run / own their own business to understand economics and business practices and additionally merely running your own business does not equate to competency in doing so - nor does it necessarily translate across industry or scale. In other words, you can own your business but that doesn't mean you are doing a good job nor does it provide de-facto validation for any business point you may want to make about another business in another industry or with a different business model / size

by your logic, profits are motive and thus no one has any right to be upset for being left in the cold.

People have the right to be upset at such a change. They also have the right to not buy the product anymore. But that doesn't make the decision to be a bad one, or somehow morally or ethically wrong.

So people voicing their concerns is a good thing.

It is a good thing, but the problem in as much as there is one, is when they complain about it, but buy the product anyway. Because IMO they're sending the wrong message. They're saying they don't like it, but not enough to actually go without. This can lead to a company putting less stock in customer comments they they maybe should.

But to tell people to shut up and just give FFG their money, that's another matter.

I don't think anyone is doing that.

I also don't think there's anything wrong with telling someone that they should save their money and not buy X-Wing stuff. If someone where to say that $15 for an expansion is too much, and they refuse to pay it. Then I don't think there's a thing wrong with telling them save their money.

There is a problem however when that person expects to be able to bring proxy models and printed cards to the LGS and be able to play.

I used to be an employee of the business that I now own, and it was easy to see the amount of money coming in and imagine that it was very profitable (and that I was being underpaid!). Now that I know firsthand the amount of work that goes into owning and running a business, it is difficult for me to be critical of any business, save those that are blatantly unethical.

Now, the real question is: Is it a correct interpretation of tax law that if I buy, for example, a Raider, and use it as a decoration in my office it then qualifies as a business expense? (Or, if I paint a Lambda shuttle to match my work van, is it an advertising expense?)

I've worked in retail and distribution, along with the travel industry on the wholesale product side, for over 20 years now. I've seen a lot of different business models, some successful, some not.

The previous comment about there being $0.50 worth of "product" in the Boba Fett model, which is probably a very generous estimate for the plastic, has *far* more to it than that.

• There's the concept of designing the model - stats, performance, overall look, and then actually getting a model maker to carve/3d model the original to work from
• Someone needs to figure out how much space they need on the cardboard inserts, so they fit in the package and still contain all the required tokens
• They have to design a mold to make it in, and test the performance of the mold so that the model will work, and actually be able to be produced in efficient quantity
• Someone else needs to design and test the blister pack, then someone else needs to design the product inserts that go in the package
• Someone else needs to figure out what cardboard box size will work, with how many will fit in the box.
• While that's going on, someone else needs to be testing the product (and coordinate the efforts and reports of volunteer playtesters, to summarize the data they provide back)
• Someone else needs to write the rules, proof-read them, and then give them to someone to make look pretty on paper
• Someone needs to come up with the artwork, either in-house or externally.
• Then someone needs to market the product, send out emails, product listings, and any other information to distributors globally
• Oh yeah, someone else needs (or a whole bunch of someones) to translate it into any other language than English that they may want to sell to
• Someone needs to coordinate all the factory work that's being done, and follow up with the product schedules and shipping estimates
• While that's happening, they need to have staff to go to trade shows and hang out with the gamers complaining that everything is taking so long
• Someone needs to receive the product to their warehouse, and then get those boxes turned around and out to the distributors globally, as quickly as possible
• Oh, and Lucasfilm wants their cut too. Probably a good percentage of it for licensing rights.
• I'm going to guess that none of these folks want to work for free, so they need to be paid too
• FFG probably likes having light, and heat/AC, and water in their office which needs to be paid for too
• FFG probably likes having an office and warehouse space so they need to pay for that

So sure, $0.50/unit should cover all of that, no problem.

So sure, $0.50/unit should cover all of that, no problem.

Yeah I love it when people try to claim that the cost of materials is the only thing that matters when talking about a product. As if that Boba Fett model actually only costs 50 cents per model to make.

The problem isn't FFG, they make great games. It's the fans, specifically Star Wars fans, the most critical and hard to please fans in the world. (Sorry that should be impossible to please). And it's hard to run a business when you are sitting in front of a computer in your mom's basement complaining about how your plastic toy is 'broken' because it's overcosted by 1-2 points in an imaginary game economy.

This is probably the single worst attitude a person can take, so everyone take note... "Yeah, it's not the business that has a problem, it's the people that perpetuate the business that have a problem..." Wrong headed from the start... I'm not even sure I understand the next line, but invoking the mythical "Moms-basement-dwelling-low-life-son-who-spends-all-day-arguing-on-the-internet" caricature takes you from a point of authority on a subject by saying you run a small business to a point of zero credibility... I'm sure that that person exists somewhere and plays X-Wing, but off the top of my head, the people I know that play X-Wing all have their own homes and careers they enjoy... I personally work in a civil engineering field, I spend a lot of my days on construction sites with a hard hat on walking around with a set of plans and talking to various contractors... I'll also be one of the first people to argue that C-3PO is undercosted by maybe 3 points for what he does...

So unless I completely missed the point of your last statement, which is 100% possible, try to present your points without fallaciously bringing up stereotypical caricatures meant to cast people who do certain things in a terrible light... Don't blame people that consume a product for critiquing said product on a literal forum that FFG gives people to do so... Get real...

Yeah, the OP was all about fans of X-wing critiquing FFG unfairly using the hyperbolic arguement that those fans do not own businesses and cannot understand the pressures of any of the employees much less the actual management or owners. All I was saying was SW fans are ungreatful, impossible to please, and eternally impatient when it comes to their 'favorite' film series and multiple media and merchandise spinoffs. Also I did invoke a stereotype of the basement dwelling nerd to imply that some people who are hypercritical towards this game to show perhaps that maybe they aren't successful businesspersons because their energy and attention wasn't used to place the on that track and instead has led them to be experts in marketing, sales, design, advertising, game theory, and any other areas necessary to reply to comments on a board game forum.

Sorry if my earlier post was too obtuse to grok.

So sure, $0.50/unit should cover all of that, no problem.

Yeah I love it when people try to claim that the cost of materials is the only thing that matters when talking about a product. As if that Boba Fett model actually only costs 50 cents per model to make.

Concepts such as amortization and overhead are foreign to the 'small folk'. Also closing the business model for any project is a real concern, but it appears that in fantasy land any company of any size can just do what they want and somehow magically make money.

What if (HYPOTHETICAL!) it was determined that if they shifted to a random booster pack model, they would lose 75% of existing players but would quadruple their profits? Aside from the inherent risk of not really knowing the future, by your logic, profits are motive and thus no one has any right to be upset for being left in the cold.

I get your point but considering the went from random booster for AGOT CCG to the LCG, I think FFG understands and is managing things well. Nor did I ever say "profit is th eonly thing", but without enough of it, you;re done. My complaint is those outside FFG criticizing their business model without being ABLE to know all the facts about costs to produce these items.

I'll go ahead and add that one need not actually run / own their own business to understand economics and business practices and additionally merely running your own business does not equate to competency in doing so - nor does it necessarily translate across industry or scale. In other words, you can own your business but that doesn't mean you are doing a good job nor does it provide de-facto validation for any business point you may want to make about another business in another industry or with a different business model / size

Absolutely true.

But when you have to do that every day with your own real money on the line, its no longer an intellectual or theoretical exercise. You live with the consequences as opposed to simply "oops, I guess I was wrong on that one". So do the employees and their families, and distributors and LGS, etc.

My point continues to be that those outside FFG cannot know all the factors that influence their decisions. No matter how smart you are in econ.

The other issue like say the complaints about not including Boba in the Twin Shadows box, is people miss out on the opportunity cost involved.

Putting aside how much it costs to make a Boba Fett model, exactly why would it make sense for FFG to include it in the box, and charge the same price they are now, vs not putting it in the box and selling it as an expansion.

Would the former be a better deal for the consumer? Sure, although you'd actually miss out on some stuff that way.

But what some people don't or more likely refuse to understand is that a business has to weigh what's best for the consumer, vs what's best for the company. Just because something is better for the consumer doesn't mean it's the best decision to make.

Sometimes, what will make the most profit is the best decision. Such as a Boba Fett expansion. There's times where the most profit is the wrong decision, either because it's so bad for the consumer it hurts sales, or perhaps it's a unethical thing to do.

But in this case it's not like they're price gouging anyone by not including Fett, and it's not false advertising either.

I'll go ahead and add that one need not actually run / own their own business to understand economics and business practices and additionally merely running your own business does not equate to competency in doing so - nor does it necessarily translate across industry or scale. In other words, you can own your business but that doesn't mean you are doing a good job nor does it provide de-facto validation for any business point you may want to make about another business in another industry or with a different business model / size

Absolutely true.

But when you have to do that every day with your own real money on the line, its no longer an intellectual or theoretical exercise. You live with the consequences as opposed to simply "oops, I guess I was wrong on that one". So do the employees and their families, and distributors and LGS, etc.

My point continues to be that those outside FFG cannot know all the factors that influence their decisions. No matter how smart you are in econ.

That's true - and the same goes for those that own their own businesses - unless you are on the inside at FFG - none of us know much of anything about their business. So the owning of a business or not is rather irrelevant to having an opinion on how one thinks FFG is doing. And I'm not disagreeing that many people on navel gazing forums such as these can be a bit myopic

Well said. I expect FFG to use their Star Wars license as wisely as possible, not only to make money, but to create some incredible games for us to enjoy. They should be rewarded for their hard work, attention to detail, and effort into bring us superior products. Could they save us money in certain cases? Yes, they probably could. I am not an expert into what they have done for or against this point, but one example I know if is with the Star Wars LCG. Initially, the Core set and Edge of Darkness required two copies to get a full 'play set'. After that, FFG started included multiple copies of the objective sets so that we would not have to buy two for the full play set. This means that from now on we can be competitive in this wonderful LCG by just purchasing a single copy of each expansion. Again, I do not know all the details, but it seems that there was probably outcry from the community and FFG realized what they were doing and corrected it.

I believe FFG is doing a fine job at using the Star Wars license to the point where I am almost buying certain games that I know I will not have time to play now to have and hold for the future...

So sure, $0.50/unit should cover all of that, no problem.

Yeah I love it when people try to claim that the cost of materials is the only thing that matters when talking about a product. As if that Boba Fett model actually only costs 50 cents per model to make.

That depends entirely on how many they make. One? Significantly more than they sell them for. The fixed cost of development and moulds is quite high, the variable unit cost is quite low.

In a grossly simplified example, $200 to develop the model and make the mould, and $0.50 in plastic and labour to make a Boba. Make one, and it costs $200.50 per model. Make two, and it costs $100.25 per model.

Make 100 and they cost $2.50 each.

Make 1,000? $0.70.

Make 10,000 and it costs $0.52 per model.

As I said, this is a grossly simplified example, there are other fixed and variable costs to consider. But the more they make, the less significant the fixed costs become.

So sure, $0.50/unit should cover all of that, no problem.

Yeah I love it when people try to claim that the cost of materials is the only thing that matters when talking about a product. As if that Boba Fett model actually only costs 50 cents per model to make.

That depends entirely on how many they make. One? Significantly more than they sell them for. The fixed cost of development and moulds is quite high, the variable unit cost is quite low.

In a grossly simplified example, $200 to develop the model and make the mould, and $0.50 in plastic and labour to make a Boba. Make one, and it costs $200.50 per model. Make two, and it costs $100.25 per model.

Make 100 and they cost $2.50 each.

Make 1,000? $0.70.

Make 10,000 and it costs $0.52 per model.

As I said, this is a grossly simplified example, there are other fixed and variable costs to consider. But the more they make, the less significant the fixed costs become.

How dare you work against the narrative!!!

Make 10,000 and it costs $0.52 per model.

True, but they still have to recoup the cost of making that model, so even if it only costs $.52 per unit at 10,000 units, that assumes they sell 10,000 units.

I have little doubt that Boba, R2-D2, C-3PO and Kayn Somos would be in the box were it not for Hasbro's lawyers.

Why? By that line of thinking the Y-wing and Tie Advanced should of been in the X-Wing core set. By selling them as expansions it allows them to put things in that package that they might not of otherwise fit.

Yes they likely had to sell a skirmish mode to avoid the boardgame tag. But that doesn't mean that's the only or even primary reason it was added.

Likewise, FFG is big on selling expansions, so I find it hard to believe that Hasbro was the only reason why they are selling a Boba Fett expansion. Again it's not like anyone is getting ripped off by not having Boba Fett in that box. Plus it's actually better for the skirmish only players.

Does anyone here ever watch "Shark Tank" and remember the episode with the guy who had a 'new' watering system? His device helped plants get the water they needed while also helping them keep that water and thus not waste so much of it. I don't remember what the manufacturing costs were but the long term cost saving on water for using them is huge.

Now the problem was that he wanted the farmers to be able to get the product easily (lower cost) to help save the environment. The Sharks on the other hand saw that he could charge FAR more for his product; this meant fewer people could buy the product but would allow him to make more money. Although he needed the help the inventor rejected this "lets charge what ever the market will bear" approach as he wanted this to get out and make more consumers happy. Eventually a deal was made where he would charge more but that 'more' was significantly less than what others thought the product could be sold for.

I want FFG to work like that guy. They need to do things that can give them enough profit to keep going but also do what they can to keep their customers happy.

I run a business; but my business is so far removed from manufacturing, that I can't comment on manufacturing costs versus RRP, I can only guess. What I can comment on (according to my accountant) is the cost of running a store.

On the face of it, running a store (in the UK at least) should be a non-cost enterprise. Why?

Because you can (according to HMRC) declare the following as tax-deductable -

Rent

Business Rates

Electricity Bills

Gas Bills

Water Bills

Telephone Bills

Bank Charges (including Credit/Debit charges per transaction)

Wages for staff

Stock

What this means (and I'm sorry if I'm teaching people to suck eggs) is that any profit made by a store the above can be offset (edit) enhanced by tax liability.

The last time I checked, a store owner could get up to 40% discount on RRP from Games Workshop. But this was entirely down to meeting GW's T&C's. There was a sliding scale in place which gave you a better discount depending on what you provided for the customer, and this is only indicative because I can't remember exactly what the scale was -

1. Provide product (bricks and mortar)? Say 10% discount

2. Provide product and have demo available? Say 20% discount

3. Provide a full GW experience without being a GW store? Say 40% discount

Probably not accurate, but not a kick in the arse off it.

So, if someone can get the new Spess Mahrinnes at a 40% discount, it looks as though they're onto a winner right?

Wrong.

If I buy 10 boxes of Spess Mahrinnes at a 40% discount I should be buggering off to the Bahamas shortly, but I have to sell them.

And I have to sell them quickly enough to write the loss of buying the stock off against the tax deduction, and that is the part that people forget when they talk about how much something costs.

I can have those 10 boxes of Spess Marhinnes on the shelf for a year before I shift them, so I'm always fighting fires. I'm always having to sell stuff at a profit before I can make money to offset the tax.

As for production costs?

Doesn't matter what they are, it's the discount that the manufacturer offers to the retailer that dictates the cost to the customer.

Boy, that was hard work. I'm off to drink beer.

Cheers

Baaa

They need to do things that can give them enough profit to keep going but also do what they can to keep their customers happy.

Who gets to decide what enough profit is? That's the problem with these kinds of statements... Exactly how much profit is enough? Who do you think should get to decide that?

I find it interesting how often people feel they have a right to decide how much money someone else should make.

Does anyone here ever watch "Shark Tank" and remember the episode with the guy who had a 'new' watering system? His device helped plants get the water they needed while also helping them keep that water and thus not waste so much of it. I don't remember what the manufacturing costs were but the long term cost saving on water for using them is huge.

Now the problem was that he wanted the farmers to be able to get the product easily (lower cost) to help save the environment. The Sharks on the other hand saw that he could charge FAR more for his product; this meant fewer people could buy the product but would allow him to make more money. Although he needed the help the inventor rejected this "lets charge what ever the market will bear" approach as he wanted this to get out and make more consumers happy. Eventually a deal was made where he would charge more but that 'more' was significantly less than what others thought the product could be sold for.

I want FFG to work like that guy. They need to do things that can give them enough profit to keep going but also do what they can to keep their customers happy.

Lol guys like that are the minority by far. In business it isn't about making enough profit its about making as much profit.

Lol guys like that are the minority by far.

Guys like that aren't doing it for the money either. That guy clearly had a different goal then profit that he was trying to achieve.

That's fine for a individual, but it is completely unrealistic to expect a company to behave the same way. Because on one hand you have that guy, on the other you have a lot of people who's lively hood depends on the company making enough money to turn a profit plus invest it in future products.

I just came here to see who runs their own business

I'll go ahead and add that one need not actually run / own their own business to understand economics and business practices and additionally merely running your own business does not equate to competency in doing so - nor does it necessarily translate across industry or scale. In other words, you can own your business but that doesn't mean you are doing a good job nor does it provide de-facto validation for any business point you may want to make about another business in another industry or with a different business model / size

Absolutely true.

But when you have to do that every day with your own real money on the line, its no longer an intellectual or theoretical exercise. You live with the consequences as opposed to simply "oops, I guess I was wrong on that one". So do the employees and their families, and distributors and LGS, etc.

My point continues to be that those outside FFG cannot know all the factors that influence their decisions. No matter how smart you are in econ.

That's true - and the same goes for those that own their own businesses - unless you are on the inside at FFG - none of us know much of anything about their business. So the owning of a business or not is rather irrelevant to having an opinion on how one thinks FFG is doing. And I'm not disagreeing that many people on navel gazing forums such as these can be a bit myopic

Which is why I didn't say "look, I know what they are doing and its the perfect decision." I continue to believe that as a business owner, I'm willing to give them (apparently more) benefit of doubt. I deal with people routinely in my business who are quite sure they know more than I do about my business, when clearly, they cannot.