<munches popcorn>

It's really the Mouses fault... "how do we design kylo's ship? make it's wings ludicrously long!" And that's how we got the bat shuttle and the silencer.

Just now, Jetfire said:

It's really the Mouses fault... "how do we design kylo's ship? make it's wings ludicrously long!" And that's how we got the bat shuttle and the silencer.

And the U-Wing

2 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

Something else that adds value (again, not necessarily trying to say full $30) is that it has multiple doubles. Ships like the Starviper, K-Wing, and Scurrg only brought doubles of one upgrade, while still bringing some new non-unique upgrades to the game.

Which by the way is also what I call here percieved value. More copies of a card is a way to justify the higher prize. But the higher prize is definitely not caused by these cards.

1 minute ago, JJ48 said:

<munches popcorn>

I got my wisdom teeth pulled out today, I'm on a cocktail of pain, drugs, hunger, thirst and frustration, so I won't keep going too long

3 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Allright, I should have made myself more clear:

Your percieved value is not linked with their determined value by prize. Your percieved value is made based on a misconception.

The reason I am right is that economic value is relative and subjective - which is why this thread was created.
You can call it misconception all you want - that doesn't change the fact that Assmode (and maybe the Mouse?) decided they would do just enough to convince some of their base that the "box size" or "scale" justify a 50% increase in price. Others are not convinced. 9 pages later...

Just now, Rinzler in a Tie said:

The reason I am right is that economic value is relative and subjective - which is why this thread was created.
You can call it misconception all you want - that doesn't change the fact that Assmode (and maybe the Mouse?) decided they would do just enough to convince some of their base that the "box size" or "scale" justify a 50% increase in price. Others are not convinced. 9 pages later...

Which is why I'm telling you again and again that linking your value to their prize is irrelevant.
They won't change their prize because of your subjectively percieved value. But you could change your percieved value based on their prize...

I hoped that some more understanding WHY they prized it $30 would do the trick, but 9 pages later you are as resistant as ever.

9 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Which is why I'm telling you again and again that linking your value to their prize is irrelevant.
They won't change their prize because of your subjectively percieved value. But you could change your percieved value based on their prize...

I hoped that some more understanding WHY they prized it $30 would do the trick, but 9 pages later you are as resistant as ever.

So much wrong.
As if the "value" and price are generated arbitrarily... And for the record, you're merely guessing why they priced it at $30, so easy on the dismount.

I'll leave it at this: clearly there are two points of view (and no, despite your best efforts, not everyone believes there was zero decisions points and FFG was forced to make the ex pac $30) and dismissing one as "irrelevant" (wrong word, wrong logic..) isn't productive. But I appreciate your willingness to go back and forth - it's why I log in every day.

Edit: For the record, I'm definitely buying one. Probably not two unless the generic is less than 25 points.

1 minute ago, Rinzler in a Tie said:

So much wrong.
As if the "value" and price are generated arbitrarily... And for the record, you're merely guessing why they priced it at $30, so easy on the dismount.

I'll leave it at this: clearly there are two points of view (and no, despite your best efforts, not everyone believes there was zero decisions points and FFG was forced to make the ex pac $30) and dismissing one as "irrelevant" (wrong word, wrong logic..) isn't productive. But I appreciate your willingness to go back and forth - it's why I log in every day.

I would like to know why you think I'm wrong?

Maybe it would help to say under which circumstances you consider yourself to be wrong? What would change your view?
My view will be changed if the Silencer fits into a $20 blister and if whatever else is in the box besides model and cards does not add more cost on their side. What about you?

Another way is that you explain my position and I explain yours. That often clears misconceptions about the other.

10 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

I would like to know why you think I'm wrong?

Maybe it would help to say under which circumstances you consider yourself to be wrong? What would change your view?
My view will be changed if the Silencer fits into a $20 blister and if whatever else is in the box besides model and cards does not add more cost on their side. What about you?

Another way is that you explain my position and I explain yours. That often clears misconceptions about the other.

Not realizing that prices are based on more than cost of sales is sooo wrong. FFG wants to make as much ($) as possible while selling as many units as possible, so they create a margin for each product.

I don't have a ton of time, but I was initially wrong for not considering that FFG would be motivated to keep to the small blister. But unfortunately, this doesn't play into the larger argument.

You're right in the sense that, to the extent feasible, FFG will price their products to cover costs and make money, but...

Back to margin. I don't believe I'm wrong because I believe FFG knows very well their margins, knows very well what their base expects (this is where the importance of value comes in), and has proven that the current model (small bases priced at $15-$20) has created the most profitable miniatures games in the world. That is why I find the price increase unjustified and unacceptable.

Your turn.

5 minutes ago, Rinzler in a Tie said:

Your turn.

You didn't answer what I asked.

What would need to happen for you to change your view?
What would be the reason for you to say: "I was wrong, the $30 are completely justified" ?

don't really get the backlash re the silencer, as people happily paid the same for the aggressor. Guess getting 4 times the plastic and cardboard on the base matters that much?

now, the bomber i don't really understand. $40 fatsos seemed to have been previously based on size, which the bomber doesn't really seem to compare to (insert lancer cruiser joke here)

stranger still is that both the caster and deci came with debris stuff (cargo chute and actual obstacles, respectively). Hound's tooth came with...a z-95 base I guess but it is fraking huge.

Res bomber seems the smallest of the lot (maybe not factoring in the glorious chin-beard and the vertical dimension of the craft), but I guess it comes with two nets?

idk, not as certain about why it's a $40 pack. At least it's a fairly self contained expansion with its system, bombs and even tech upgrade (synchronize seems ideal because this thing's primary weapon is craptastic with no way to improve it outside of fcs, which is kinda a waste) +unique mod and title all accounted for

could maybe use hyperwaves instead of targeting synch though, I guess

2 minutes ago, ficklegreendice said:

idk, not as certain about why it's a $40 pack.

One possibility is that they thought they need to go with $30 for the Silencer, and having both at the same price would cause even more backlash

2 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

One possibility is that they thought they need to go with $30 for the Silencer, and having both at the same price would cause even more backlash

unless the scaling is super funky, they seem to be the same length

but I guess some imps have been incredibly salty lately, despite the glorious gunboat

13 minutes ago, Rinzler in a Tie said:

Not realizing that prices are based on more than cost of sales is sooo wrong. FFG wants to make as much ($) as possible while selling as many units as possible, so they create a margin for each product.

I don't have a ton of time, but I was initially wrong for not considering that FFG would be motivated to keep to the small blister. But unfortunately, this doesn't play into the larger argument.

You're right in the sense that, to the extent feasible, FFG will price their products to cover costs and make money, but...

Back to margin. I don't believe I'm wrong because I believe FFG knows very well their margins, knows very well what their base expects (this is where the importance of value comes in), and has proven that the current model (small bases priced at $15-$20) has created the most profitable miniatures games in the world. That is why I find the price increase unjustified and unacceptable.

Your turn.

Well, you can't really know what the margins would be if they made this a whole new pricing sku, of $25. Which would be called on as a foul, because this looks about as big as the U-wing or Aggressor, at the very least. Placing the value on base size, rather than miniature size, is a mistake.

3 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

You didn't answer what I asked.

What would need to happen for you to change your view?
What would be the reason for you to say: "I was wrong, the $30 are completely justified" ?

To be fair, you haven't listed where you're wrong...

If the ship, reduced in size by no less than 7.5%, would still not fit into a small blister, I would accept a more than $20 price tag (still not confident I wouldn't **** about the $30 tag). FFG has shown that scale is not the end-all be-all and I agree. There are more important elements.
If the ship comes with more than what we've seen in the preview, I will accept the $30 price tag.

Selfish plug: If the ship is meta defining I will accept the $30 value (relative value).

2 minutes ago, ficklegreendice said:

unless the scaling is super funky, they seem to be the same size

but I guess some imps have been incredibly salty lately, despite the glorious gunboat

The scale is off. Four of those Silencer bases does not fit into the Bomber base.

6 minutes ago, Rinzler in a Tie said:

To be fair, you haven't listed where you're wrong...

Ah sorry, I didn't mean that you should list where you were wrong.

I thought I did make it more clear with my own example:

26 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

My view will be changed if the Silencer fits into a $20 blister and if whatever else is in the box besides model and cards does not add more cost on their side.

So it looks like our criteria are quite similar:
1) Does it fit into a small blister?
2) Is there more in the pack that we don't see yet?

I do think it is possible that they want to exploit their playerbase by increasing the price.
But I also think there are good reasons why they want to stick to the model that made XTMG the most profitable miniature games in the world, as you said, and not sacrifice it for some short term gains. So any change from that model is probably not voluntary.

1 hour ago, Rinzler in a Tie said:

Literally repeating what I said moments ago, which you don't understand:

You're clearly convinced it was a) necessary to have this ship in a larger box, and b) that that should somehow translate to a literal doubling in price for what is amounting to the same value as a small-base ship (which is why so many of us are fixating on it).

What determines the value of a small-base ship? This looks like it's probably bigger than any other small base ship in the game (and you don't seem to have an issue with large-base ships costing more), and comes with more upgrades than other small base ships. What's the difference between this and the u-wing or aggressor (besides the size of the base itself) that makes those worth 30 but not this? It's not in-game cost of the ship or how many you can fly, given that kylo is only 1 point less than an IG, and built out will cost almost as much.

1 hour ago, Rinzler in a Tie said:

My point is that this ship is not more valuable to us because it won't fit into a smaller blister - the (presumed) fact that they are increasing the box size and justifying it by saying it's to scale (while not maintaining scale for all other prior ships, I might add) is exploitation

6 minutes ago, Rinzler in a Tie said:

If the ship, reduced in size by no less than 7.5%, would still not fit into a small blister, I would accept a more than $20 price tag (still not confident I wouldn't **** about the $30 tag). FFG has shown that scale is not the end-all be-all and I agree. There are more important elements.

What ships are out of scale?

21 minutes ago, Rinzler in a Tie said:

Back to margin. I don't believe I'm wrong because I believe FFG knows very well their margins, knows very well what their base expects (this is where the importance of value comes in), and has proven that the current model (small bases priced at $15-$20) has created the most profitable miniatures games in the world. That is why I find the price increase unjustified and unacceptable.

You're forgetting that th emost profitable minituares game int he world doesn't only consist of $15-20 ships. It ALSO has $30-50 large base ships. And the $30 jumpmaster is probably one of their most profitable ships in the game.

56 minutes ago, Jetfire said:

It's really the Mouses fault... "how do we design kylo's ship? make it's wings ludicrously long!" And that's how we got the bat shuttle and the silencer.

given how his character is all about overcompensating in order to feel like an evil badass, I'd say it's at least thematically appropriate

Why are you determining value and price based on the size of the ship base? are we saying that most of the value is derived from how much plastic is used for the ships base and cardboard size?

Because that is nuts... Anyways its a hobby it costs what ever they want to charge, if people find the price unacceptable then don't buy it, if you do buy it you will confirm that they made the correct pricing decision. Its a free market, vote with your wallet.

I for one don't see to much of an issue, the ship looks really large, probably more plastic and what not then the IG's it might also have a much more complicated mold or painting thing that also ups there cost or any other number of things. Lastly for all we know they were told for whatever reason the silencer needs to be in a box not a blister to better go on shelves for visability (its possible.... we don't know).

Something is only a price gouge if you have to buy it, X-wing is not a necessity.

15 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

So it looks like our criteria are quite similar:
1) Does it fit into a small blister?
2) Is there more in the pack that we don't see yet?

I do think it is possible that they want to exploit their playerbase by increasing the price.
But I also think there are good reasons why they want to stick to the model that made XTMG the most profitable miniature games in the world, as you said, and not sacrifice it for some short term gains. So any change from that model is probably not voluntary.

Well said, sir. Agreed on all accounts. It's probably not voluntary, but it could be.

They appear to be on the small end for their classes. But it's no big stretch.

You don't have to argue with people.

42 minutes ago, Rinzler in a Tie said:

Selfish plug: If the ship is meta defining I will accept the $30 value (relative value).

This is the WORST case scenario. The moment FFG utilizes power creep to force sales at a higher cost intentionally, I'm gone and never looking back.

8 minutes ago, Rinzler in a Tie said:

Well said, sir. Agreed on all accounts. It's probably not voluntary, but it could be.

That means we have two ways to react for the next 3-6 months (whenever it arrives):

1) We give them the benefit of the doubt. So far they didn't use larger packaging unless necessary, e.g. they shipped the Punisher or the Scurrg in a $20 blister. We do not get angry, and do not feel exploited. We're excited for a new cool ship that's a cigaret pack more expensive than others, but the whole game is anyway a form of luxury.

2) We do not give them the benefit of the doubt. We assume they will try to exploit us, that they voluntarily chose the larger box for $30 just to press more money out of the players. We assume that they speculate on selling so many Silencers that the lower ships per volume to transport and store is worth it. So we're angry and disappointed.

I know this is arguing from consequence, but even IF 2) was true: we do not know yet. And until we have a way to know, 1) seems much more reasonable because it's way more pleasant for everyone.

Of course as soon as we know the whole dance can start again, but I'm just advocating that we keep a more positive attitude until we know that the sh*tstorm is justified.

6 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

That means we have two ways to react for the next 3-6 months (whenever it arrives):

1) We give them the benefit of the doubt. So far they didn't use larger packaging unless necessary, e.g. they shipped the Punisher or the Scurrg in a $20 blister. We do not get angry, and do not feel exploited. We're excited for a new cool ship that's a cigaret pack more expensive than others, but the whole game is anyway a form of luxury.

2) We do not give them the benefit of the doubt. We assume they will try to exploit us, that they voluntarily chose the larger box for $30 just to press more money out of the players. We assume that they speculate on selling so many Silencers that the lower ships per volume to transport and store is worth it. So we're angry and disappointed.

I know this is arguing from consequence, but even IF 2) was true: we do not know yet. And until we have a way to know, 1) seems much more reasonable because it's way more pleasant for everyone.

Of course as soon as we know the whole dance can start again, but I'm just advocating that we keep a more positive attitude until we know that the sh*tstorm is justified.

Absolutely. I do enjoy the "discussion" but I think you've summed up the thread nicely..
Here's to hoping they squeeze a TLJ A-Wing into that box!