Rubbish,

I play new games all the **** time, and I never go to a shop to try them out, or get hooked into it, we have this amazing thing called the internet and you can find information on new games on it, you can read forums to see what people think of it, in fact you can make a far far more educated choice by doing so, than going to some dingy shop that is a throwback to the 80's and looking at the box on the shelves.

And this is because there is to much choice, too many products, the chances of finding someone in a shop who plays it or has, is tiny, unless it is a mainstream been around for ever game.

I bought all my Armada stuff without setting foot in a shop once, to learn how to play or see if I liked it, and you know what I have a group of around 12 friends I've known since GW in the 80's, and now without them ever stepping foot into a LGS to try it out, 6 of them play it, and buy stuff from FFG.

This is not the age of corner phone boxes, no cell phones, no internet, no home PCS, we live in an increasingly digitised world, if shops cannot make themselves competitive, and I refuse to accept they cannot, because it is totally and utterly disingenuous to claim and online retailer has no overheads, they need to rent a property, they need to pay staff, they need to maintain an extensive online catalogue, they have to hire website designers, they need to do all sorts of expensive and costly things to be competitive in todays online markets, shops just want to keep plodding along like the world around them is not changing, guess what, it is, either change with it or go out of business, just like everyone and everything else does.

A few places that are within 20 miles of where I live have physical premises with a shop, and places to game, and guess what, they have websites, with all the stock they carry, photos, prices you name it, it has an amazing website, they do free post on orders over £80, nominal rates under that, they have evolved, they are tapping into both markets and they are doing great.

Now with this new ruling...they have to pick to either be one or the other, because you cannot be both with Asmodee.

Awesome!

I love this debate (I really do - no sarcasm), and there are already a number of threads about it. Here's one that's 22 pages long and I'll link you to the end of it so that we can spin off this discussion and keep the current thread for the news as it unfolds from GAMA.

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/175456-to-lgs-or-not-to-lgs-that-is-the-question/page-22

*Vader asthma breathing intensifies over wave 3 anticipation."

I think the biggest test of the whole Asmodee distribution change is going to be that Star Wars: Rebellion game. I believe that I heard somewhere that it has an MSRP of $99 US. If that's correct, and it can't be sold/advertised online, and it's only available for full MSRP at the LGS, my guess is that release is going to bomb and bomb hard.

If I could get it from MM at a discount, I'd probably impulse buy it. But if I have to get in the car, go down to the LGS (who's stock is always hit or miss, and it's 45 minutes away, double whammy of being a pain in the ass) I'm just going to skip that game. People are into X-Wing, Armada, and IA, but that too will peter off as the stuff gets more expensive and harder to get. But I believe the bellwether for this new strategy will be the Rebellion game. If it does in fact bomb, the future is not bright.

Eastern, it's great that you do a lot of research into games online and are willing to try out something you've never seen before, but not everyone is willing to take that same risk or they might not have the money to drop on a game they might play once. The miniatures gaming model relies on physical locations that people know they can go to to use the plastic and cardboard they just spent hundreds of dollars on. It relies on people stopping into a store having never played a game before, getting a brief rundown or an intro game, and buying into it. There are plenty of people that just play with their friends or relatives, true, but the business model itself is centered around people encountering games in public places. If you take gaming stores out of the equation, how are new people going to even hear about games? And don't say online. If you've never played a tabletop game before, why are you going to be bumming around tabletop gaming news and websites?

And are you honestly saying that an online retailer has the same or higher overhead costs than a brick and mortar store? I could run an online distributor out of my basement by myself. Do you have any idea how many boxes of product you could pack into another box and ship out in a single day? A shitton. Literally hundreds. Taking Armada as an example, a retail store needs enough room to run multiple games at once. Let's say you want to run a tournament for twenty people. You need ten 3' x 6' tables (actually larger, because you would need space for cards and tokens and, y'know, the people to stand). You need shelf space to display product. You need space for a cash register. Most gaming stores have space for a display case. You need a stockroom. You need bathrooms. You need good lighting. You need parking. You need employees (or to not have a family/life). And you need people to actually walk in your store. Which means you need a relatively convenient location that looks nice, which means your rent is going to be a lot higher.

An online retailer needs maybe one table to put a box on, and some stocking space. You can be in a dilapidated warehouse in the rundown part of town, because people don't actually need to see your area, meaning your rent will be a lot lower.

Probably the biggest kicker, though, is an online retailer can sell to ​anyone, anywhere. A retail store can only reach the people in its area. Which means that the online seller has a much, much bigger customer pool, leading to a higher volume of sales, meaning that they can take a much bigger hit on each individual sale, because the volume of sales will make up for it. The retail store, with its higher costs and limited market, has to make more money on each sale, because its fewer individual sales mean each one counts more. And I know you said that some of the stores near you have managed to do both, but they probably did it a long time ago before there was a lot of online competition. Now, you have to somehow increase your storage space for increasing back stock, hire at least another person to package and ship, and somehow compete with the established online sellers. So you have to further increase your costs with money you probably don't have to try and break into a market that already has major players.

Yes, it does suck that people who don't need/take advantage of physical retail stores will have to pay more. I get it. But this is a necessary move to protect the business model as it exist. Maybe they can move to a more online-centric some day, but this is not that day.

This is just price fixing, plain and simple.

Markets evolve, and the way we shop is evolving, but these guys don't want this to change, he doesn't get to tell us we should be paying over the odds, and we should enjoy the fact we are doing so, because a board game is a luxury item, a yacht is a luxury item, a sports car is a luxury item, a $15,000 Breitling is a luxury item.

This is a toy game, a hobby, entertainment.

A shop can do more to be competitive, but they do not because usually they are the only game in town, so they get to charge what they like, because no competition, now we have a choice, what do they do? we're going to impose legislation to remove that competition, and tell us it's for our own benefit...amazing.

First, let's get our definitions correct please.

This is not price fixing. FFG is not colluding with other gaming producers to lock up their market at high prices and contravene the forces of supply and demand. A single seller choosing to alter the terms on which they sell their product is, unless that seller is in and of itself a monopoly that dominates an entire market (and FFG is far from a gaming monopoly), cannot be price fixing. This require collusion between producers / sellers of similar goods, which is not the case here. Ford, GM, Toyota, Honda, etc. all getting together to say "we won't sell cars for less than $30k" is price fixing. Toyota deciding, on their own, that they are going to sell direct online at a higher price than they sell to dealers is not price fixing.

Second, the arguments about the evolution of shopping are precisely why FFG is taking this action. It comes down to a question of "what is your product?"

• If you believe the product is purely the physical thing that FFG is selling to you (e.g. they are a company that makes a bunch of cardboard and plastic), then online shopping is something they should embrace. It is cheaper, faster, and more efficient delivery of the exact same thing to a customer.
• If you believe the product is, however, more than just the physical thing, but also an experience (e.g. playing with your friends or within a community), then online shopping is something they should reject. In that case, the online guys are clipping off a part of what FFG views as the core of their product, thereby reducing it's value and undercutting the people who do not do that and provide the other things (e.g. a physical space, tournament support, and so on) that deliver the rest of the value of the product.

So which do you believe it is?

Personally, as someone who runs a relatively sizable business, I would be doing the same thing as FFG. Games definitely have a network effect (the more people who play, the more people who will play), and if FFG has internal metrics showing that the tournament scene and gaming stores increase their long-term sales, they should be cutting out the online discounters as those guys are sacrificing long-term viability in favor of short-term gains (something, ironically, people often decry when businesses/investors do in other contexts...) for any of the games where you need a community around them to play. I don't necessarily feel the same way about pure-play boardgames (e.g. Android the boxed game), but for things like X-Wing, Armada, and LCGs, I suspect this is a net profit increasing move for FFG and a net community size increasing move for all of us. The losers here, however, will be those who don't have a FLGS (or only have crap ones), and thus derived no value in the second case above and thus would prefer the first option.

So, I need to disagree with your assertion that this isn't price fixing. It is exactly what it is. FFG is intervening in the market to enforce a price floor on their products. Right now I can go on to Amazon.com and buy an X-Wing expansion pack for $11.93. I can buy that same expansion from MM at $9.89. CSI is selling it for $9.49. So the market price that prudent sellers are willing to sell the product for is somewhere below the MSRP and the market price that prudent buyers are willing to pay is also lower than the MSRP of $14.99. So, if FFG steps in and forces an artificial price floor of MSRP, or any price above which prudent buyers and sellers would meet at to make a transaction, then they are definitionally price fixing.

Furthermore, you are correct to say that they aren't a monopoly with gaming in general, but they have an absolute monopoly over X-Wing, Armada, and IA (and all of their other properties). They are absolutely in a monopoly position as they are the only company on Earth with the rights to develop, produce, and distribute that product. When is the last time you saw Games Workshop making X-Wing expansion packs for the X-Wing miniatures game?

They can say it's to support their LGS, but lets be honest here, what supports your LGS is MtG. More likely than not. FFG stuff doesn't broadly support a store, it takes up too much space and doesn't require that much of an investment. I don't need to buy a new booster each Friday night. This is a cash grab by FFG. It may work out for them, but it has just as big a chance of strangling their player base, especially on games like Armada that have such a high barrier to entry already.

I agree with a lot of what you say Reegsk, but the reality is these shops have been in the decline for decades, there used to be half a dozen in Manchester city center, now there are 2 and one of them is not much larger than the upstairs of my house, it has zero game tables, and more than 50% of its floor space is given over to books, and comics.

So why aren't they moving to the quiet part of town where the rents are lower? these shops really aren't about passing trade, there about dedicated gamers, and dedicated gamers will go exactly where they need to to get their fix, so why not be competitive? why try run something with astronomical rents in the city center.

You could move out of the city, get your website up and running, have a small shop, with a huge store house, and gaming tables to boot, and have the best of both worlds, but that is not what is happening.

This is just price fixing, plain and simple.

Markets evolve, and the way we shop is evolving, but these guys don't want this to change, he doesn't get to tell us we should be paying over the odds, and we should enjoy the fact we are doing so, because a board game is a luxury item, a yacht is a luxury item, a sports car is a luxury item, a $15,000 Breitling is a luxury item.

This is a toy game, a hobby, entertainment.

A shop can do more to be competitive, but they do not because usually they are the only game in town, so they get to charge what they like, because no competition, now we have a choice, what do they do? we're going to impose legislation to remove that competition, and tell us it's for our own benefit...amazing.

First, let's get our definitions correct please.

This is not price fixing. FFG is not colluding with other gaming producers to lock up their market at high prices and contravene the forces of supply and demand. A single seller choosing to alter the terms on which they sell their product is, unless that seller is in and of itself a monopoly that dominates an entire market (and FFG is far from a gaming monopoly), cannot be price fixing. This require collusion between producers / sellers of similar goods, which is not the case here. Ford, GM, Toyota, Honda, etc. all getting together to say "we won't sell cars for less than $30k" is price fixing. Toyota deciding, on their own, that they are going to sell direct online at a higher price than they sell to dealers is not price fixing.

Second, the arguments about the evolution of shopping are precisely why FFG is taking this action. It comes down to a question of "what is your product?"

• If you believe the product is purely the physical thing that FFG is selling to you (e.g. they are a company that makes a bunch of cardboard and plastic), then online shopping is something they should embrace. It is cheaper, faster, and more efficient delivery of the exact same thing to a customer.
• If you believe the product is, however, more than just the physical thing, but also an experience (e.g. playing with your friends or within a community), then online shopping is something they should reject. In that case, the online guys are clipping off a part of what FFG views as the core of their product, thereby reducing it's value and undercutting the people who do not do that and provide the other things (e.g. a physical space, tournament support, and so on) that deliver the rest of the value of the product.

So which do you believe it is?

Personally, as someone who runs a relatively sizable business, I would be doing the same thing as FFG. Games definitely have a network effect (the more people who play, the more people who will play), and if FFG has internal metrics showing that the tournament scene and gaming stores increase their long-term sales, they should be cutting out the online discounters as those guys are sacrificing long-term viability in favor of short-term gains (something, ironically, people often decry when businesses/investors do in other contexts...) for any of the games where you need a community around them to play. I don't necessarily feel the same way about pure-play boardgames (e.g. Android the boxed game), but for things like X-Wing, Armada, and LCGs, I suspect this is a net profit increasing move for FFG and a net community size increasing move for all of us. The losers here, however, will be those who don't have a FLGS (or only have crap ones), and thus derived no value in the second case above and thus would prefer the first option.

So, I need to disagree with your assertion that this isn't price fixing. It is exactly what it is. FFG is intervening in the market to enforce a price floor on their products. Right now I can go on to Amazon.com and buy an X-Wing expansion pack for $11.93. I can buy that same expansion from MM at $9.89. CSI is selling it for $9.49. So the market price that prudent sellers are willing to sell the product for is somewhere below the MSRP and the market price that prudent buyers are willing to pay is also lower than the MSRP of $14.99. So, if FFG steps in and forces an artificial price floor of MSRP, or any price above which prudent buyers and sellers would meet at to make a transaction, then they are definitionally price fixing.

Furthermore, you are correct to say that they aren't a monopoly with gaming in general, but they have an absolute monopoly over X-Wing, Armada, and IA (and all of their other properties). They are absolutely in a monopoly position as they are the only company on Earth with the rights to develop, produce, and distribute that product. When is the last time you saw Games Workshop making X-Wing expansion packs for the X-Wing miniatures game?

They can say it's to support their LGS, but lets be honest here, what supports your LGS is MtG. More likely than not. FFG stuff doesn't broadly support a store, it takes up too much space and doesn't require that much of an investment. I don't need to buy a new booster each Friday night. This is a cash grab by FFG. It may work out for them, but it has just as big a chance of strangling their player base, especially on games like Armada that have such a high barrier to entry already.

Thats not a Monopoly, every company has a "monopoly" on how they sell thier own products thats called trademark and copywright. A Monopoly is having total or near total control of a product catergoyr or market segment. Apple has a "monopoly" on iPhone, but they have plenty of competition in the Smartphone market those iPhones compete in.

For this to be price fixing Asmodee would have to be somehow controlling the price of GW or Privateer Press products.

Now, if GW, and Asmodee and Privateer and a few others all got together and agreed to the same price restrictions that would be price fixing.

Maybe he was talking about the board game. Would explain a lot...

"I'm building a House on Armada Avenue."

"That's fine, because I own all four Imperial Assault Expansions. I'm more worried about that Hotel on Imperial Aces Boulevard."

"Go to Jail. Go directly to Jail. Do not pass Initiative. Do not gain First Player benefits."

This is just price fixing, plain and simple.

Markets evolve, and the way we shop is evolving, but these guys don't want this to change, he doesn't get to tell us we should be paying over the odds, and we should enjoy the fact we are doing so, because a board game is a luxury item, a yacht is a luxury item, a sports car is a luxury item, a $15,000 Breitling is a luxury item.

This is a toy game, a hobby, entertainment.

A shop can do more to be competitive, but they do not because usually they are the only game in town, so they get to charge what they like, because no competition, now we have a choice, what do they do? we're going to impose legislation to remove that competition, and tell us it's for our own benefit...amazing.

First, let's get our definitions correct please.

This is not price fixing. FFG is not colluding with other gaming producers to lock up their market at high prices and contravene the forces of supply and demand. A single seller choosing to alter the terms on which they sell their product is, unless that seller is in and of itself a monopoly that dominates an entire market (and FFG is far from a gaming monopoly), cannot be price fixing. This require collusion between producers / sellers of similar goods, which is not the case here. Ford, GM, Toyota, Honda, etc. all getting together to say "we won't sell cars for less than $30k" is price fixing. Toyota deciding, on their own, that they are going to sell direct online at a higher price than they sell to dealers is not price fixing.

Second, the arguments about the evolution of shopping are precisely why FFG is taking this action. It comes down to a question of "what is your product?"

• If you believe the product is purely the physical thing that FFG is selling to you (e.g. they are a company that makes a bunch of cardboard and plastic), then online shopping is something they should embrace. It is cheaper, faster, and more efficient delivery of the exact same thing to a customer.
• If you believe the product is, however, more than just the physical thing, but also an experience (e.g. playing with your friends or within a community), then online shopping is something they should reject. In that case, the online guys are clipping off a part of what FFG views as the core of their product, thereby reducing it's value and undercutting the people who do not do that and provide the other things (e.g. a physical space, tournament support, and so on) that deliver the rest of the value of the product.

So which do you believe it is?

Personally, as someone who runs a relatively sizable business, I would be doing the same thing as FFG. Games definitely have a network effect (the more people who play, the more people who will play), and if FFG has internal metrics showing that the tournament scene and gaming stores increase their long-term sales, they should be cutting out the online discounters as those guys are sacrificing long-term viability in favor of short-term gains (something, ironically, people often decry when businesses/investors do in other contexts...) for any of the games where you need a community around them to play. I don't necessarily feel the same way about pure-play boardgames (e.g. Android the boxed game), but for things like X-Wing, Armada, and LCGs, I suspect this is a net profit increasing move for FFG and a net community size increasing move for all of us. The losers here, however, will be those who don't have a FLGS (or only have crap ones), and thus derived no value in the second case above and thus would prefer the first option.

So, I need to disagree with your assertion that this isn't price fixing. It is exactly what it is. FFG is intervening in the market to enforce a price floor on their products. Right now I can go on to Amazon.com and buy an X-Wing expansion pack for $11.93. I can buy that same expansion from MM at $9.89. CSI is selling it for $9.49. So the market price that prudent sellers are willing to sell the product for is somewhere below the MSRP and the market price that prudent buyers are willing to pay is also lower than the MSRP of $14.99. So, if FFG steps in and forces an artificial price floor of MSRP, or any price above which prudent buyers and sellers would meet at to make a transaction, then they are definitionally price fixing.

Furthermore, you are correct to say that they aren't a monopoly with gaming in general, but they have an absolute monopoly over X-Wing, Armada, and IA (and all of their other properties). They are absolutely in a monopoly position as they are the only company on Earth with the rights to develop, produce, and distribute that product. When is the last time you saw Games Workshop making X-Wing expansion packs for the X-Wing miniatures game?

They can say it's to support their LGS, but lets be honest here, what supports your LGS is MtG. More likely than not. FFG stuff doesn't broadly support a store, it takes up too much space and doesn't require that much of an investment. I don't need to buy a new booster each Friday night. This is a cash grab by FFG. It may work out for them, but it has just as big a chance of strangling their player base, especially on games like Armada that have such a high barrier to entry already.

Thats not a Monopoly, every company has a "monopoly" on how they sell thier own products thats called trademark and copywright. A Monopoly is having total or near total control of a product catergoyr or market segment. Apple has a "monopoly" on iPhone, but they have plenty of competition in the Smartphone market those iPhones compete in.

For this to be price fixing Asmodee would have to be somehow controlling the price of GW or Privateer Press products.

Now, if GW, and Asmodee and Privateer and a few others all got together and agreed to the same price restrictions that would be price fixing.

So Apple has a monopoly on the iPhone? If FFG having a monopoly on X-Wing isn't the same thing, I have no idea what you're talking about here because you contradicted yourself. If you agree that Apple has a monopoly on the market for IPhones, then how can you not agree that FFG doesn't have a monopoly on X-Wing.

I'm not saying that FFG has a monopoly on gaming, but on X-Wing they exercise total and complete control over it's distribution. There are other similar games, Attack Wing comes to mind, but I can't get X-wing from anyone else.

But you're right, lets not consult opinion, let's check the dictionary...

Full Definition of monopoly

plural mo·nop·o·lies

So, let me get this straight. It is price fixing when a company mandates that online retailers have to sell their product at a minimum price. Am I getting that wrong? If that is right Wizards of the Coast did that when they increased the base cost of boosters to all retailers.

I don't see how price fixing would work in a miniature environment.

How would each company come together and quantify what their plastic/resin models are worth compared to a other company?

Continuing on, I am an FLGS buyer. If my FLGS can get it in I will buy it from them. They treat me well and I in return continue to come back.

On another note. . . This topic is being beaten to death again. At least it only shows up twice a year or so

So Apple has a monopoly on the iPhone? If FFG having a monopoly on X-Wing isn't the same thing, I have no idea what you're talking about here because you contradicted yourself. If you agree that Apple has a monopoly on the market for IPhones, then how can you not agree that FFG doesn't have a monopoly on X-Wing.

I'm not saying that FFG has a monopoly on gaming, but on X-Wing they exercise total and complete control over it's distribution. There are other similar games, Attack Wing comes to mind, but I can't get X-wing from anyone else.

But you're right, lets not consult opinion, let's check the dictionary...

Full Definition of monopoly

plural mo·nop·o·lies

• 1 : exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action

• 2 : exclusive possession or control

• 3 : a commodity controlled by one party

• 4 : one that has a monopoly

Hmmm, it seems that when it comes to X-Wing, Armada, and IA (and other FFG) products, FFG has a monopoly. They certainly meet the conditions of 1, 2, possibly 3 (depending upon how you define "commodity"), and 4.

Copyrights, patents, and trademarks are instruments by which the originator of some form of IP is granted exclusive control over their creation. Essentially, it creates a monopoly for them as an incentive to bring a new product to market. These instruments are also temporary. In the US, a patent can last up to 20 years. Trademarks last for 10 years (but can be renewed an unlimited number of times). Copyrights last for 70 years. The whole part of a copyright or a patent is to create a monopoly for the creator of a product or a work. It gives the creator the exclusive right to modify, use, reproduce the item.

FFG doesn't have a monopoly over gaming, it does however have an absolute monopoly over X-Wing, Armada, and IA products.

A monopoly is something that takes into account ALL products in that market. For FFG to have a monopoly they would have to own GW, Wyrd, WizKids, Privateer Press, as well as other companies that produce miniature games.

As far asy understanding of monopolies goes, a franchise is not a monopoly, so Star Wars can not be a monopoly.

Apple has the trademark and thus rights to the IPhone. Now, if Apple acquired Verizon, Samsung, Sony, and the like they would have a monopoly.

Simple right?

Rubbish,

I play new games all the **** time, and I never go to a shop to try them out, or get hooked into it, we have this amazing thing called the internet and you can find information on new games on it, you can read forums to see what people think of it, in fact you can make a far far more educated choice by doing so, than going to some dingy shop that is a throwback to the 80's and looking at the box on the shelves.

And this is because there is to much choice, too many products, the chances of finding someone in a shop who plays it or has, is tiny, unless it is a mainstream been around for ever game.

I bought all my Armada stuff without setting foot in a shop once, to learn how to play or see if I liked it, and you know what I have a group of around 12 friends I've known since GW in the 80's, and now without them ever stepping foot into a LGS to try it out, 6 of them play it, and buy stuff from FFG.

This is not the age of corner phone boxes, no cell phones, no internet, no home PCS, we live in an increasingly digitised world, if shops cannot make themselves competitive, and I refuse to accept they cannot, because it is totally and utterly disingenuous to claim and online retailer has no overheads, they need to rent a property, they need to pay staff, they need to maintain an extensive online catalogue, they have to hire website designers, they need to do all sorts of expensive and costly things to be competitive in todays online markets, shops just want to keep plodding along like the world around them is not changing, guess what, it is, either change with it or go out of business, just like everyone and everything else does.

Online retailers do need to rent property, but not as much, since they don't need room for tables and chairs or even display cases. Keeping a bunch of product in boxes until you need to ship it out is much more space efficient than having to display it on shelves and pegs. Rent for business purposes is generally a price per square foot. Thus, more square footage means more rent to pay. Online stores don't need to worry about always having someone at a register to take a sale. Needing to always have someone available means that you need more employees. An online place can get away with a single employee. Any store that actually runs events generally needs at least two. I never said the online retailers didn't need any. I said that brick and mortar require _more_. That more means more cost. It isn't about online retailers having no overhead, it's about them having less.

If FFG didn't think that events were absolutely necessary to growing and maintaining their game, then none of this would matter in the least to them. They wouldn't do events at all, and they wouldn't feel the need to have different pricing for online retailers. Not doing events would be far, far cheaper for them as a business.

Furthermore, you are correct to say that they aren't a monopoly with gaming in general, but they have an absolute monopoly over X-Wing, Armada, and IA (and all of their other properties). They are absolutely in a monopoly position as they are the only company on Earth with the rights to develop, produce, and distribute that product. When is the last time you saw Games Workshop making X-Wing expansion packs for the X-Wing miniatures game?

They can say it's to support their LGS, but lets be honest here, what supports your LGS is MtG. More likely than not. FFG stuff doesn't broadly support a store, it takes up too much space and doesn't require that much of an investment. I don't need to buy a new booster each Friday night. This is a cash grab by FFG. It may work out for them, but it has just as big a chance of strangling their player base, especially on games like Armada that have such a high barrier to entry already.

Of course they have a monopoly on X-Wing. That's a legal monopoly, specifically protected by intellectual property laws. And guess what? Every company is allowed to set the pricing of their own products. They're even allowed to provide different pricing to different customers for any number of reasons. That's perfectly legal, and there's nothing wrong with it ethically, either. If you don't want to pay a higher price for something - don't. That's how supply and demand works. You aren't forced to pay the higher prices. It just means that you don't get the product, either. If enough people aren't willing to pay that price, they'll either find a way to reduce the price, or they'll stop making the product. On the other hand, if enough people are willing to pay that price, well, I guess you'll just have to find a different hobby.

As for it being a cash grab - I highly doubt that. The gaming industry is not exactly a highly profitable one. Plus, I fail to see how it really ends up resulting in more money for them. If the price to the customer is the same at the brick and mortar store vs the online retailer, then more people are likely to buy from the brick and mortar store (due to immediate gratification and lack of shipping fees), which means the profit margin ends up being less to FFG anyways. This is an attempt to direct customers to brick and mortar stores, in order to encourage those stores to hold events.

so much for this thread being useful

I swear so many threads on this forum devolve into nothing userful, just posters arguing past each other as if it actually meant something

Remember, some online retailers don't even hold stock, they order from their distributor and ship once they get it in.

I wonder if someone from FFG is watching this in a Vader mask failing to eat popcorn due to the mask.

I always wondered if Vader sat in his ball and ate popcorn watching Ozzel f...up and such.

If they weren't before they surely are now >.<

so much for this thread being useful

I swear so many threads on this forum devolve into nothing userful, just posters arguing past each other as if it actually meant something

Are you new to the internet? lol

Okay, I give up.

Here's a new thread:

Are you new to the internet? lol

Just because you're Unsurprised doesn't stop you from being Disappointed.

I know I am.

But I also know my Opinion is Unimportant on the Internet.

I would prefer to see arguments in argument places, and news in news places, as such...

But that's a personal preference, and non-enforcable on anyone.

Frankly, I see a lot of people here have a lot of Negative Opinions on the Subject matter...

To them, I wish I could turn around and say "Okay, I get it. But its happening, so what are you going to do about it, that is more positive than just shouting negativity on the forum for absolutely no gain, not even catharsis?"

OK, so this is bugging me.

A monopoly is when one company owns all of the ability to sell something. Now it may seem like FFG has a monopoly because they have the rights to our Star Wars games - but that's not really all there is to being a monopoly. It's also not necessarily illegal unless you start doing shady pricing stuff to maximize profits because you have the market cornered - FFG isn't doing that (I will address their pricing in a moment) and they hardly have a gaming monopoly. They own all the distribution rights to this one thing - but then every company has a monopoly on what it produces, even if there are other brands of the same product, no one else makes that brand, so a monopoly is, as I said, a bit more than that.

As for price fixing, price fixing and price setting are two different things. Manufacturers can set the prices that they charge distributors, and it can even set the prices that distributors sell for. That is widespread, and perfectly legal.

An entire industry with of various companies cannot collude together to ensure artificially high, noncommissioned non-competitive pricing across the industry. That's price fixing.

For example, I used to work in retail. Pepsi and Coke set their shelf prices. They told my company the minimum to sell their soda for. If Pepsi and Coke execs got together and both decided to raise their prices by 30%, that would be price fixing because they are rivals working together to screw the consumers.

Alternatively, Amazon sued 5 major publishers because all 5 publishers decided to change their contracts with Amazon to prohibit Amazon's loss-leader sales model for new releases. The court found, iirc, that these publishers had worked together to implement a new, unprecedented book sales contract in concert - that was price fixing. Any one publisher could have done it anyway no problem, but when competitors when together to increase prices, that is the problem.

In this case FFG is neither am illegal monopoly, nor are they price fixing.

Of course their pricing changes will be bad for some people. It'll be hugely advantageous for many local game stores. I have mixed feelings about the switch, but I can't entirely disapprove. I worked with a guy who owned an FLGS, they aren't often extremely profitable. They do seem at a high markup, but that's to account for selling a relatively low demand niche market item.

I wanted to weigh in on the "lower discounts for online retailers" issue. It is phenomenal that people have a space outside of a shop where they can play and enjoy these games. Not everyone (I dare say most people) are not so lucky. As an example, I share a small 1 bedroom (4 total room) apartment with my wife and my cat. As any cat owner here knows, FFG must mix catnip in their paint, because my feline companion LOVES grabbing and chewing on X-Wing and Armada ships. Cardboard tokens are great fun to whack around, and a nice neoprene mat is the purrfect place to lay down. Beyond that, my kitchen table is small and would barely fit an xwing mat, armada is impossible. Heck, most of my games have to stay in the storage unit because I can only fit so many on top of my bookshelf. Most of my friends are in the same boat, and now that we have all hit first child age, playing at home is **** near impossible until the first couple to buy a house sets up a "nerd cave" in the basement.

If I didn't have a shop to play at, I wouldn't be able to play. If that shop doesn't make money, they can't stay open. The shop I go to know has a huge, comfortable and well stocked play area. To play, you pay $5 and when you are done you get it back as store credit (a great model, by the way). But they still need to be able to compete with online retailers. Sure, I will get some big ticket items (like core sets) online, not only for the savings but because often shops can't carry a huge stock of larger boxes. I will get expansions from my shop though. Not everyone (as clearly shown in this thread) will do the same. It used to be that game stores paid their bills with magic the gathering and other CCGs. I'm sure that's still the case. But if some more profit comes from other games, the stores will expand, carry more product, and continue to be a cornerstone of the hobby. I know that in this world of online gaming, I love having a place where I can sit down face to face with someone and play a game.

Again, I know not everyone needs a space to play, but a lot of people do. And if the $5 discount is what literally breaks the bank for you, I think some priorities need to be reassessed.

I think asmodee is making a mistake here long term, but of course that will depend on how much of a discount online retailers will still be able to make.

If the discount has been reduced to the point that the cost to the consumer is say 10-15% off retail, then I know I'll pretty much stop buying FFG products except for maybe armada. It's a shame as I am currently invested in armada, ia, xwing and star wars lcg and own a few of their other board games.

The good news is, there are still plenty of excellent games out there that aren't going to be affected by this pricing scheme.