I just saw an interesting thing that reminded me of another economics concept that ANA may need to be wary off, substitute goods.

Evidently the Chinese mini wargaming counterfeiters now have access to decent 3D scanners, sprue layout techniques, CNC cutters and injection molding gear and are not just copying GW plastic kits but rearranging the the layout of items on the sprues to their personal satisfaction. Spikey Bitz just put up a video this week of a side by side comparison of a Imperial Knight Titan and a injection-molded counterfeit. The detail isn't quite as sharp (rivets seem about 1/3 rd shallower) but otherwise it's a pretty faithful reproduction and I doubt that someone will be able to tell the difference once it's painted. I bet the difference would be virtually unnoticeable on the significantly less detail XWM items.

As much as I honestly believe that interfering with the market like this does not make economic sense and will ultimately hurt the market by delaying/preventing some B&M stores from evolving to cope with the new reality of retailing, (sorry but that genie is not going to go back in the bottle) I really don't want to see the game fall prey to that.

-Maxgravity

Of all the miniature games out there X-Wing and Armada seem the least likely to be ripped off like that. Not only is the model needed, but it would need to be painted, with the tokens, stands, cards, and then shipped halfway across the world for like $8 a piece? I just don't see it happening.

I just read the article. Can someone quote for me where he says the prices will go up? Because I must have missed it.

I just read the article. Can someone quote for me where he says the prices will go up? Because I must have missed it.

He mentions not having the same, or greater discounts, for the big online stores as the local stores. It is pretty easy to tell that their discounts will be affected. And if they have less discounts, they have to change prices to maintain their margins.

But it's the one we've had the entire life of the game after three years it's far to late to worry about your game being devalued.

It's hardly too late.

Things are worth only what the customer will pay nothing more

No, different people value things differently. However, if nobody is willing to pay enough to keep a product line profitable, then the product line stops being made. Companies don't make things out of love with no profit.

If I don't think a ship's worth 14 when previously it was 10 then I won't buy it and sooner or later market pressure will lower the price for me as sellers want to shift old stock even at the expense of profit.

And there you have it, the crux of the argument. "People should sell me things at a loss because I don't want to pay what they cost."

I can't imagine that any person that makes this type of argument works for a living.

If FFG loses customers that weren't willing to pay to keep a product line alive, what loss is that to FFG? None whatsoever.

Your argument is childish; you clearly don't know what things really cost.

Let's say there are 4 entities involved in selling you that product at your LGS. That includes a manufacturer, a publisher, a distributor, and your LGS. Everyone in that chain will charge you twice what they paid to recover operating costs. So that $15 ship costs FFG $3.75 and only $1.88 to make. So if CSI sells it to you for $8 on CLEARANCE, then they're only out operating costs, which for online retail is relatively low. So when CSI puts it on clearance, it's because they have too much stock and costs too much to store, especially since they use Amazon's storage option.

What happens if the distributor charges CSI $9 instead of $7.77? Well, they can't charge $10 normal price anymore because they'll be operating at a loss. Instead they will have to charge something like $13, which puts them at a competitive disadvantage. Now they're not making much on ANA products anymore if at all. They may decide to stop selling entirely. What do you think happens at this point? Think it will be an argument about MSRP? What happens when your LGS has to pay the same increase? They'll pass that cost on and will be hit by the increase even worse.

So maybe instead of making sophmoric insults, you should get an education in how retail and distribution works.

Actually, I made no insults but you can't seem to refrain from them.

When companies like Amazon or CSI sell at a loss, whether it is to clear stock or to drive related sales or to drive the competition out of business (these last two reasons are noticeably absent from your 'explanation'), what they actually end up doing is devaluing the product. Now if anyone were to claim they knew about the economics of it as you do, then you would understand that devaluation of product becomes a systematic problem for the manufacturer. We see it here, people are freaking out over paying less of a discount because they have already placed a low expected value on the product. Extreme discounts or clearance prices don't work for most retailers, they cannot afford to operate on such thin margins or at a loss to themselves. When retailers cannot sell for a profit because customers are not willing to pay as their expectations have been set to purchase at a price which would be at a loss to the retailer, then products don't move until they are on clearance. The retailers stop ordering stock, moving to products that will sustain them. This kills the product line or forces the manufacturer to sell at a reduced rate removing their own profit or lowering the quality of the product to compensate. The end result of this is termination of product lines or closure of businesses.

This is a problem across all manufacturing industries, it is a well documented economic result of this behavior.

As you seem to think that I don't know what I write about and you have claimed expertise, you surely must already be aware of this and that it is this very problem that FFG is looking to avoid, in order to keep a stable future for this and all of their game lines and therefore the company itself. I certainly find it odd that you have not considered this in your exposition above, or perhaps it is inconvenient to your point and therefore left out.

When I wrote that losing customers who will not pay enough to sustain the product line is no loss to FFG, that wasn't an insult. It was a fact.

But thanks for your 'educated and mature' view, to contrast my childish and ignorant one.

I just read the article. Can someone quote for me where he says the prices will go up? Because I must have missed it.

Its here in part 2:

"It is reasonable to assume that product will still be discounted online; this makes sense as that channel has a number of disadvantages (such as product receipt delay, shipping expenses, etc.). However, given the fact that our trade discounts to the online channel have been aligned with the services they provide, it is likely that online discounts will not be as disproportional as they have been in the past relative to pricing (which includes the volume or loyalty discounts) offered by many brick-and-mortar retailers."

This is after he says that online retailers essentially piggyback and take advantage of brick and mortar specialty stores by undercutting their prices but not providing the services Asmodee thinks is necessary for their games. The point was this, also in part 2:

"For a market to be efficient, it must internalize its true cost and be sustainable. In the case of the current hobby market, one channel (online) is relying significantly on the cost and investments of another channel (specialty retail). Our new sales policy seeks to reconcile where Asmodee North America is willing to pay (in the form of the wholesale discounts we extend) for the services we need for the creation of demand."

He (the CEO of Asmodee) says that they will adjust their trade terms based on the distribution. It sounds like they value Specialty Retail (ie LGS) > Retail mass market (target, barnes and noble, etc...) > and then online retailers. Right now they al get the same trade terms/buy from the same distributor but the point of this is that Asmodee is going to adjust their trade terms based on each retailer.

Honestly, it all makes a lot of sense. Whether the actual effect will be what he says it will be is another matter.

Of all the miniature games out there X-Wing and Armada seem the least likely to be ripped off like that. Not only is the model needed, but it would need to be painted, with the tokens, stands, cards, and then shipped halfway across the world for like $8 a piece? I just don't see it happening.

I had a look through some Chinese recaster catalogs for WH40k. One marine character (Librarian, chaplain etc.) which IMO has around the same level of detail as a small x-wing ship is 5$. Even if they sell unpainted, I doubt any of the good recasters can print cards and dials and stay under 8 $, especially since they need to also acquire some cardboard printing infrastructure which they lack.

CSI IS the distributor though. Now imagine being a flgs, who has to buy from a distributor for 8 dollars. The same 8 dollars that distributor is selling the product online for. It completely destroys the distributor/store relationship. That's why Asmodee stopped supplying distributors that were abusing the system.

FRP

CSI

MM

They are all fronts for distributors.

It's almost like the FLGS is an outmoded business idea that needs to adapt to a changed market landscape, or die...

1 - I wont buy any Asmodee, Days of Wonder or FFG games or supplies at any brick and mortar store in the from here out. Stricly purchasing onine I will save money even if its all at 25% from now on and not 35% discount.

2 - I will continue to enjoy my hobby and will actually benefit from spending less at the ridiculous MSRP price they put on these games.

3 - I will continue to purchase non Asmodee, FFG, Days of Wonder games at my local gaming stores when the right product is there at a good price.

I have just spent $300 all online in the last few days on games. Mostly FFG products in these orders. I would add I did spend $52 at local gaming store on non FFG x wing supplies and LCG supplies.

Wow, 18 pages and still not locked! Can't be far off.

I don't know where to start, so much wrong!

1. People are saying it's a price increase so they'll buy fewer toys. Well yes, of course, a five year old would predict that when prices increase some people will buy less. The company knows this and believe other buyers will make up for it in the long run.

2. People have argued it's a discount reduction, not a price increase. Purely semantic argument, makes no difference to the customers involved.

3. People have suggested that if you can't afford a 20% increase then why are you spending money on toys at all. Utterly stupid. Follow that logic through, what if they can afford this 20%, what about another, and another, and another? Basically for this logic to stand up everybody can afford an infinite amount. Clearly everybody has a limit on what they can afford to spend on toys, perhaps they're already at it? Some people might have reached it by buying multiples of each ship, others might only be able to afford one, but either way why is it hard to believe they may be near their limit already?

I did say I was a troll. I know for a fact I'm not the one looking weak when I can afford a 14$ for a toy

Wow. Where was that block button again?

And as I've said, the current perceived value for money is a distorted view, it's a selfish all about me attitude and people complaining they are getting less of a discount. A discount... A freaking discount.

So far.... Wait let me just say this first. I love america, American sports American culture. I follow the Pittsburgh Penguins religiously and the New England Patriots. So don't shoot me down for saying that Americans in general have an "all about me" and "I deserve this" attitude of arrogance, the rest of the worlds knows it. And it's starting to show through this thread here.

Speaking as someone in the rest of the world I don't make stupid mass generalisations like "Americans have an 'all about me' or 'I deserve this' attitude". I also don't like American sport, no offence!

Wow, 18 pages and still not locked! Can't be far off.

I don't know where to start, so much wrong!

1. People are saying it's a price increase so they'll buy fewer toys. Well yes, of course, a five year old would predict that when prices increase some people will buy less. The company knows this and believe other buyers will make up for it in the long run.

2. People have argued it's a discount reduction, not a price increase. Purely semantic argument, makes no difference to the customers involved.

3. People have suggested that if you can't afford a 20% increase then why are you spending money on toys at all. Utterly stupid. Follow that logic through, what if they can afford this 20%, what about another, and another, and another? Basically for this logic to stand up everybody can afford an infinite amount. Clearly everybody had a limit on what they can afford to spend on toys, perhaps they're already at it? Some people might have ached it by buying multiples of each ship, others might only be able to afford one, but either way why is it hard to believe they may be near their limit already?

I am the consumer. I set the terms of my purchases. I choose to buy online and save money.

Your free to spend your money were ever you wish.

Again Consumers set the terms of purchases not the makers of goods or services. We have all the power.

Wow, 18 pages and still not locked! Can't be far off.

I don't know where to start, so much wrong!

1. People are saying it's a price increase so they'll buy fewer toys. Well yes, of course, a five year old would predict that when prices increase some people will buy less. The company knows this and believe other buyers will make up for it in the long run.

2. People have argued it's a discount reduction, not a price increase. Purely semantic argument, makes no difference to the customers involved.

3. People have suggested that if you can't afford a 20% increase then why are you spending money on toys at all. Utterly stupid. Follow that logic through, what if they can afford this 20%, what about another, and another, and another? Basically for this logic to stand up everybody can afford an infinite amount. Clearly everybody had a limit on what they can afford to spend on toys, perhaps they're already at it? Some people might have ached it by buying multiples of each ship, others might only be able to afford one, but either way why is it hard to believe they may be near their limit already?

I am the consumer. I set the terms of my purchases. I choose to buy online and save money.

Your free to spend your money were ever you wish.

Again Consumers set the terms of purchases not the makers of goods or services. We have all the power.

Yes, I agree. Did I say someone to contradict that?

And as we've seen gamers do have a keen sense of value for money and will decrease purchases or leave a game altogether.

Companies don't think long term they think about how the next quarter will look to investors we've seen this time and again they will ruin their future in the name of short term profits.

And once you get locked into price increases to maintain profit it sends you into a death spiral where ever increasing prices drive more and more customers away until you collapse.

mazz0, on 01 Jan 2016 - 05:15 AM, said:

Tokyogriz, on 01 Jan 2016 - 05:14 AM, said:

mazz0, on 01 Jan 2016 - 05:01 AM, said:

Wow, 18 pages and still not locked! Can't be far off.

I don't know where to start, so much wrong!

1. People are saying it's a price increase so they'll buy fewer toys. Well yes, of course, a five year old would predict that when prices increase some people will buy less. The company knows this and believe other buyers will make up for it in the long run.

2. People have argued it's a discount reduction, not a price increase. Purely semantic argument, makes no difference to the customers involved.

3. People have suggested that if you can't afford a 20% increase then why are you spending money on toys at all. Utterly stupid. Follow that logic through, what if they can afford this 20%, what about another, and another, and another? Basically for this logic to stand up everybody can afford an infinite amount. Clearly everybody had a limit on what they can afford to spend on toys, perhaps they're already at it? Some people might have ached it by buying multiples of each ship, others might only be able to afford one, but either way why is it hard to believe they may be near their limit already?

I am the consumer. I set the terms of my purchases. I choose to buy online and save money.

Your free to spend your money were ever you wish.

Again Consumers set the terms of purchases not the makers of goods or services. We have all the power.

Yes, I agree. Did I say someone to contradict that?

I believe I misread your post.

I believe I misread your post.

I was gonna say!

Companies don't think long term they think about how the next quarter will look to investors we've seen this time and again they will ruin their future in the name of short term profits.

Don't underestimate the foresight of these companies. This move may be a miscalculation, but it is not geared towards short-term profit at the expense of long-term. FFG knows how to incentivise players to make repeated purchases and previous mid-sized ships have shown that the market will bear a price increase. Again, this doesn't mean that they are totally right. Just recognize they put more thought into the decision than immediate greed.

Isn't it about time this thread got closed as it's quite clearly leading no where and is just causing bad feeling?

The facts are that the price is going to go up slightly for a lot of online orders and you can ***** and moan about it as much as you like but that's not going to change. For those who buy their stuff online you've got the following options...

a) Buy less

2) Suck it up and buy the same

iii) Take your bat and ball home and vow never to buy anything FFG release ever again EVER!!1

There's never going to be agreement from the two sides on this.

I myself make a lot of use of my FLGS and do all I can to support them. As far as I'm concerned anything that helps build local communities is a great thing and well worth paying extra for. Expansions could cost £1 each but if people don't have anywhere and more importantly anyone to play with then what's the point?

You however might never play in a FLGS or might not have access to one and so I can totally understand why you might just want things as cheaply as possible. But while you don't care about supporting FLGS's then you've got to realise that people who do, equally have no reason to care if those that play solely on their kitchen table and add nothing to a local community buy new models or not.

With that in mind let's just move on. It is what it is and there's nothing at all to be gained from page after page after page of the same discussion.

I agree. We could talk about breakfast instead?

Companies don't think long term they think about how the next quarter will look to investors we've seen this time and again they will ruin their future in the name of short term profits.

Don't underestimate the foresight of these companies. This move may be a miscalculation, but it is not geared towards short-term profit at the expense of long-term. FFG knows how to incentivise players to make repeated purchases and previous mid-sized ships have shown that the market will bear a price increase. Again, this doesn't mean that they are totally right. Just recognize they put more thought into the decision than immediate greed.

More OP options would incentivise. More fixes to under performing ships too. They continually fix ships, but are mum about OP in 2016.

Mid-size ships show the market will accept larger ships with more upgrades for a slightly higher price. They don't show the market will bear an increase. Those mid-size ships come with nearly twice the cards and cardboard.

More OP formats and more frequent releases of them would support the LGS better than reducing product distribution. Store Champs bring people out in droves. Then there's nothing for most stores the other 11 months of the year. 2 seasonal kits a year plus potentially a store champ and if really lucky a regional. Scheduled for days/times that won't impact their magic tournaments of course.

Beef up the instructions in those OP kits, assume the store doesn't know how to run a war game league. Include the latest faq and various tournament rules with it. Help the stores out so the unofficial events they attempt are structured and familiar to existing players so high turnout draws in new players and grows the community. Release new OP formats and support them equally with official events.

Then once established, start requiring stores to provide minimum accoutrements to be selected as official OP venues. Help the stores decide to invest in themselves (you can lead a magic player to water but you can't make him shower... but you can ventilate your building).

...If you're really committed to helping the LGS and not just in it for a quick cash grab by reducing discounts.

Richard_Thomas_, on 01 Jan 2016 - 07:43 AM, said:

Isn't it about time this thread got closed as it's quite clearly leading no where and is just causing bad feeling?

The facts are that the price is going to go up slightly for a lot of online orders and you can ***** and moan about it as much as you like but that's not going to change. For those who buy their stuff online you've got the following options...

a) Buy less

2) Suck it up and buy the same

iii) Take your bat and ball home and vow never to buy anything FFG release ever again EVER!!1

There's never going to be agreement from the two sides on this.

I myself make a lot of use of my FLGS and do all I can to support them. As far as I'm concerned anything that helps build local communities is a great thing and well worth paying extra for. Expansions could cost £1 each but if people don't have anywhere and more importantly anyone to play with then what's the point?

You however might never play in a FLGS or might not have access to one and so I can totally understand why you might just want things as cheaply as possible. But while you don't care about supporting FLGS's then you've got to realise that people who do, equally have no reason to care if those that play solely on their kitchen table and add nothing to a local community buy new models or not.

With that in mind let's just move on. It is what it is and there's nothing at all to be gained from page after page after page of the same discussion.

We as the consumer are in charge of this situation. Your list of 3 options is missing one option. Your 4th option is purchase only online and in fact save more money than spending a dime at local stores on FFG products.

Many gamers I know, including myself, purchase both at local stores and online. I wont be the only one purchasing FFG, Asmodee, and Days of Wonder products online ONLY to save money.

No corporation is going to demand or push me to purchase anywhere. I and all of you as the consumer decide this for ourselves. This is why people are angry at Asmodee and feel its a slap in the face.

The actual fourth option is this:

The majority of X wing players don't hangout of FFG's forum or read their press releases. They may notice that the discounts are twenty percent off instead of thirty, and will continue to happily buy and play X Wing.

It's idiotic to think that the consumer has all the power in the consumer-producer relationship. First off, the consumers represent a huge market, and a minority percentage of it becoming upset won't effect the producer. If the majority portion does refuse the minimum cost the producer sets, the producer will just not produce. The consumers can't strong arm the producer.

Unless you think they should stop making X-Wing. Is that your goal?

It's idiotic to think that the consumer has all the power in the consumer-producer relationship. First off, the consumers represent a huge market, and a minority percentage of it becoming upset won't effect the producer. If the majority portion does refuse the minimum cost the producer sets, the producer will just not produce. The consumers can't strong arm the producer.

Unless you think they should stop making X-Wing. Is that your goal?

This comment makes zero sense.

But, on your prior post, we are not talking about fans such as yourself... As shown with your fleet, where they can package a space turd and slap Star Wars on it and you will buy (Don't worry Ill probably buy it too); we are talking about the people and sales at the margin. Where an Android player might say, "naw ill skip", of an Xwing player might check out the snazzy new GOT card game or see Fury of Dracula and decide against buying it. That is where the discussion is aimed, not the hard core folks.

Actually,I think in this case the customer can strong-arm the producer somewhat. If the majority was willing to pay the old price point, but not the new one, the logical move is to revertto the old price point assuming it was generating profit, not shut it down completely.