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.

Except that readjustment of the margin shows that they have determined the margin isn't profitable enough. The game is a few years old now. Rising cost of materials makes the margin and price they set years ago less and less profitable.

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.

What exactly do you hope to achieve by that? FFG will sell the same number of expansions and the only ones to suffer will be the innocent FLGS and potentially the community that uses the store that you used to buy from.

From a purely selfish point of view it's a great plan. You continue to get things cheaply. But don't be under any kind of illusion that you're sending some kind of 'consumer champion' message to big bad Asmodee.

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.

Except that readjustment of the margin shows that they have determined the margin isn't profitable enough. The game is a few years old now. Rising cost of materials makes the margin and price they set years ago less and less profitable.

You are totally misunderstanding the situation. This is not about FF making more money, it is about helping out your neighborhood retailer who cant compete price wise with the internet prices and how FF feels they are getting shifted.

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

You say you'll do the latter but I doubt it, so I hope you enjoy your sense of unbridled freedom and powaaarrrr.

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

spot on, you have the power to do exactly as Asmodee and FFG say, or vote with your wallet.

You say you'll do the latter but I doubt it, so I hope you enjoy your sense of unbridled freedom and powaaarrrr.

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.

Except that readjustment of the margin shows that they have determined the margin isn't profitable enough. The game is a few years old now. Rising cost of materials makes the margin and price they set years ago less and less profitable.

You are totally misunderstanding the situation. This is not about FF making more money, it is about helping out your neighborhood retailer who cant compete price wise with the internet prices and how FF feels they are getting shifted.

If the online stores devalue the cost of the product online, FFGs margin takes a hit as material and labor costs go up. If the online stores artificially set the price at 8 dollars, FFG loses the ability to set costs at an appropriate level in the future.

Just because this move helps retailers, doesn't exclude this from being about FFGs rising cost to manufacture the game. Both can be true.

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.

Except that readjustment of the margin shows that they have determined the margin isn't profitable enough. The game is a few years old now. Rising cost of materials makes the margin and price they set years ago less and less profitable.

You are totally misunderstanding the situation. This is not about FF making more money, it is about helping out your neighborhood retailer who cant compete price wise with the internet prices and how FF feels they are getting shifted.

Or so FFG says. Imagine for a moment this really was about FFG management deciding 'this game is successful enough, people are invested in it so they will keep buying if we increase our profit margin'. Would you honestly expect them to come forth and say 'we think we can squeeze more profit out of you guys' instead of coming up with a reason why they 'had to' increase prices?

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.

Except that readjustment of the margin shows that they have determined the margin isn't profitable enough. The game is a few years old now. Rising cost of materials makes the margin and price they set years ago less and less profitable.

You are totally misunderstanding the situation. This is not about FF making more money, it is about helping out your neighborhood retailer who cant compete price wise with the internet prices and how FF feels they are getting shifted.

No, I've gone over that as well in all my previous posts.

If the online stores devalue the cost of the product online, FFGs margin takes a hit as material and labor costs go up. If the online stores artificially set the price at 8 dollars, FFG loses the ability to set costs at an appropriate level in the future.

Just because this move helps retailers, doesn't exclude this from being about FFGs rising cost to manufacture the game. Both can be true.

Except in the interview, where this whole discussion started, explicitly the CEO said it was to help the game-stores in the interview. Reread the interview maybe? Your just guessing that prices have gone up over time and labor costs. Your evidence? Or is this just a guess? In fact, I bet the opposite is true, as they are more efficient and making products now than in 2012. They even opened up a second factory bud and are scaling up production which CUT costs.

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.

Except that readjustment of the margin shows that they have determined the margin isn't profitable enough. The game is a few years old now. Rising cost of materials makes the margin and price they set years ago less and less profitable.

You are totally misunderstanding the situation. This is not about FF making more money, it is about helping out your neighborhood retailer who cant compete price wise with the internet prices and how FF feels they are getting shifted.

Or so FFG says. Imagine for a moment this really was about FFG management deciding 'this game is successful enough, people are invested in it so they will keep buying if we increase our profit margin'. Would you honestly expect them to come forth and say 'we think we can squeeze more profit out of you guys' instead of coming up with a reason why they 'had to' increase prices?

Arguing the possibility of something that MAY be is a waste of time. We have no indication that is the case, so to argue over that position is pointless.

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.

Except that readjustment of the margin shows that they have determined the margin isn't profitable enough. The game is a few years old now. Rising cost of materials makes the margin and price they set years ago less and less profitable.

You are totally misunderstanding the situation. This is not about FF making more money, it is about helping out your neighborhood retailer who cant compete price wise with the internet prices and how FF feels they are getting shifted.

No, I've gone over that as well in all my previous posts.

If the online stores devalue the cost of the product online, FFGs margin takes a hit as material and labor costs go up. If the online stores artificially set the price at 8 dollars, FFG loses the ability to set costs at an appropriate level in the future.

Just because this move helps retailers, doesn't exclude this from being about FFGs rising cost to manufacture the game. Both can be true.

Except in the interview, where this whole discussion started, explicitly the CEO said it was to help the game-stores in the interview. Reread the interview maybe? Your just guessing that prices have gone up over time and labor costs. Your evidence? Or is this just a guess? In fact, I bet the opposite is true, as they are more efficient and making products now than in 2012. They even opened up a second factory bud and are scaling up production which CUT costs.

Because I used to work at the distributors you're arguing over, and now work for a manufacturing company.

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.

Except that readjustment of the margin shows that they have determined the margin isn't profitable enough. The game is a few years old now. Rising cost of materials makes the margin and price they set years ago less and less profitable.

You are totally misunderstanding the situation. This is not about FF making more money, it is about helping out your neighborhood retailer who cant compete price wise with the internet prices and how FF feels they are getting shifted.

Or so FFG says. Imagine for a moment this really was about FFG management deciding 'this game is successful enough, people are invested in it so they will keep buying if we increase our profit margin'. Would you honestly expect them to come forth and say 'we think we can squeeze more profit out of you guys' instead of coming up with a reason why they 'had to' increase prices?

Arguing the possibility of something that MAY be is a waste of time. We have no indication that is the case, so to argue over that position is pointless.

So suggesting that maybe you shouldn't take everything a corporate executive says at face value is pointless?

Because I used to work at the distributors you're arguing over, and now work for a manufacturing company.

Perfect, with your prior CFO experience, means you must already understand this. Well please care to enlighten us about the costs then?

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.

Except that readjustment of the margin shows that they have determined the margin isn't profitable enough. The game is a few years old now. Rising cost of materials makes the margin and price they set years ago less and less profitable.

You are totally misunderstanding the situation. This is not about FF making more money, it is about helping out your neighborhood retailer who cant compete price wise with the internet prices and how FF feels they are getting shifted.

Or so FFG says. Imagine for a moment this really was about FFG management deciding 'this game is successful enough, people are invested in it so they will keep buying if we increase our profit margin'. Would you honestly expect them to come forth and say 'we think we can squeeze more profit out of you guys' instead of coming up with a reason why they 'had to' increase prices?

Arguing the possibility of something that MAY be is a waste of time. We have no indication that is the case, so to argue over that position is pointless.

So suggesting that maybe you shouldn't take everything a corporate executive says at face value is pointless?

I will argue the absurd to illustrate why arguing over baseless hypotheticals is a waste of time: We may be hit by a planet killing asteroid next month, but to live life in constant fear of that is a waste of energy. Until we have evidence that supports that possibility, it is safer to live life under the assumption it won't take place.

Because I used to work at the distributors you're arguing over, and now work for a manufacturing company.

Perfect, with your prior CFO experience, means you must already understand this. Well please care to enlighten us about the costs then?

I'd suggest starting by researching the growing middle class of China, their increased demand for luxuries, and the rising cost of labor in China.

Then move on to speculative oil pricing and resource scarcity.

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.

Except that readjustment of the margin shows that they have determined the margin isn't profitable enough. The game is a few years old now. Rising cost of materials makes the margin and price they set years ago less and less profitable.

You are totally misunderstanding the situation. This is not about FF making more money, it is about helping out your neighborhood retailer who cant compete price wise with the internet prices and how FF feels they are getting shifted.

Or so FFG says. Imagine for a moment this really was about FFG management deciding 'this game is successful enough, people are invested in it so they will keep buying if we increase our profit margin'. Would you honestly expect them to come forth and say 'we think we can squeeze more profit out of you guys' instead of coming up with a reason why they 'had to' increase prices?

Arguing the possibility of something that MAY be is a waste of time. We have no indication that is the case, so to argue over that position is pointless.

So suggesting that maybe you shouldn't take everything a corporate executive says at face value is pointless?

I will argue the absurd to illustrate why arguing over baseless hypotheticals is a waste of time: We may be hit by a planet killing asteroid next month, but to live life in constant fear of that is a waste of energy. Until we have evidence that supports that possibility, it is safer to live life under the assumption it won't take place.

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.

Except that readjustment of the margin shows that they have determined the margin isn't profitable enough. The game is a few years old now. Rising cost of materials makes the margin and price they set years ago less and less profitable.

You are totally misunderstanding the situation. This is not about FF making more money, it is about helping out your neighborhood retailer who cant compete price wise with the internet prices and how FF feels they are getting shifted.

Or so FFG says. Imagine for a moment this really was about FFG management deciding 'this game is successful enough, people are invested in it so they will keep buying if we increase our profit margin'. Would you honestly expect them to come forth and say 'we think we can squeeze more profit out of you guys' instead of coming up with a reason why they 'had to' increase prices?

Arguing the possibility of something that MAY be is a waste of time. We have no indication that is the case, so to argue over that position is pointless.

So suggesting that maybe you shouldn't take everything a corporate executive says at face value is pointless?

I will argue the absurd to illustrate why arguing over baseless hypotheticals is a waste of time: We may be hit by a planet killing asteroid next month, but to live life in constant fear of that is a waste of energy. Until we have evidence that supports that possibility, it is safer to live life under the assumption it won't take place.

FFG is a business, not a charity. This means that somewhere in this whole decision there is something that makes them more money (IMO it's naive to think otherwise). Until simebody from them comes forth and explains what (IMO thus win't happen), I think it's naive to think there is no ulterior motive to this move (although what might that be is pure speculation).

I'd suggest starting by researching the growing middle class of China, their increased demand for luxuries, and the rising cost of labor in China.

WHoa whoa, as the manufacturing and distributing experienced financial expert suggests, I now need to wikipedia the rising costs in China and to draw the conclusion it costs FF more money to make Xwings which is in part why then are cutting distributors? Humm that is quite interesting way to prove any of your points.

It is

I'd suggest starting by researching the growing middle class of China, their increased demand for luxuries, and the rising cost of labor in China.

WHoa whoa, as the manufacturing and distributing experienced financial expert suggests, I now need to wikipedia the rising costs in China and to draw the conclusion it costs FF more money to make Xwings which is in part why then are cutting distributors? Humm that is quite interesting way to prove any of your points.

(This one.)

I think we're ready for that lock now...

FFG is a business, not a charity. This means that somewhere in this whole decision there is something that makes them more money (IMO it's naive to think otherwise). Until simebody from them comes forth and explains what (IMO thus win't happen), I think it's naive to think there is no ulterior motive to this move (although what might that be is pure speculation).

They have explained what it is, that's what the interview in the OP does. Whether we believe them or not is another matter. On the one hand they're a big capitalist corporation, so I for one start from a very sceptical standpoint, but on the other hand what they said makes a lot of sense, and I don't see why they'd lie. They haven't denied its about ensuring profit for them, it's just more strategic than simply "more money now".

I think we're ready for that lock now...

Do we get a free evade?

In before lock?

Anyway, my original premise for being negative on this new policy still stands. Prices increases in the hobby gaming industry are inevitable. Whether it be due to "simple" inflation or because the publishers just want to make more money.

The reason I am opposed to this policy change is mainly because it is being sold to the hobby games community as some egalitarian move to help out local game stores when really it will not make a significant change to that effect. If ANA really wanted to level the playing field, they would lower the wholesale prices to physical stores instead of keeping it the same and just raising the wholesale prices for online store (which is what this new policy is doing). And if they really wanted to take away the advantage of online stores and force us to shop local, they would prevent ALL online sales from any store other than their own, where their prices would always be full MSRP but local shops had the choice to sell their products at less than MSRP via discounts and/or occasional sales (again, much like GW did in the early 2000's). Also, ANA would need to get more involved with helping stores create the kind of environment that is needed to attract more people and help diminish the negative perceptions that so many general consumers have with regards to the hobby games world (or anything that is of the "geek gaming culture" as it were). I know far too many people (my wife included) who feel that most hobby game stores are a hive of scum and villainy (aka un-washed "game nerds" and staff with bad attitudes). Now, you and I know that there may be a little truth to that, but by and large it's not the case however, many game store aren't doing much to repel that perception (the few game cafes that are popping up is a start and I really see these as the future of "community game stores").

But as it stands, this new policy is clearly a means to capture more money from online sales (which I am sure ANA figures will only increase year over year anyway) however they don't want to come out and just say "we want to make more money at the expense of increased online prices".

If ANA was just honest and provided the real reasons why they are making this policy change, I wouldn't be so inclined to post about this topic on this forum.

How do you know that isn't what they're planning?