It's occurred to me that there's an alternate way to pack X-wing products that would drastically lower the price of ship blisters, at the cost of increasing the core set's cost by about $5.

In essence, the logistical cost of combining plastic mini, cards, cardboard and plastic base/pegs into every single blister creates a bit of price inflation. Instead, it'd be a lot more effective to revise the core set to include most of these components, starting with:

4 small bases total (3 so far).
3 medium bases.
2 large bases.
Generic ship templates of each size (no name/stats/actions printed on it), one per base.
A comprehensive set of tokens (jam, ion, tractor, etc), probably 4 of each.

You'd be adding 9 bases, of maybe $3 total cost, and while you're adding a little cardboard you're taking some out as well, so maybe $1 extra cost. Finally, the cost of packing it all together might be as high as $1, so 5 all up. You remove the need for all but 2-3 small cardboard identifier tokens (to distinguish pilots) from each blister, bases no longer have to be included in each blister, and cards have already hinted to be sold separately anyway (which is the better option for all but big buyers of all 5 factions), reducing the pack to essentially just the model. I'd expect the cost of blisters to go down significantly, leading to the ability to get more ships for your buck while not losing out on anything.

Players of epic almost universally buy 2+ core sets anyway, due to the better economy and extra ancillary pieces, so the base limit isn't difficult. Flyers of swarms can get either a second core set or a base pack for their inherently expensive build.

I'm really wondering why FFG didn't go this route for 2e in the first place, since they don't actually lose out on sales.

"Drastically" is fifty cents?

Edit Note: You're looking at an inelastic demand curve for addicted players. They will buy, irrespective. Increased sales do not always correlate with increased profits. They wouldn't lower the price by more than fifty cents per ship. No point...

Buying 2 Core sets seems like a terrible value proposition if you are a single faction player or a Scum player that's not doing all 3 factions.

9 hours ago, Larky Bobble said:

"Drastically" is fifty cents?

Edit Note: You're looking at an inelastic demand curve for addicted players. They will buy, irrespective. Increased sales do not always correlate with increased profits. They wouldn't lower the price by more than fifty cents per ship. No point...

Drastically would be about $5, which is about what I'd expect for a product with decreased handling, material and packaging costs. While a small portion of the population will buy multiples of everything, the vast majority only buy a select few ships (I myself am at about 40), so you're really not looking at the whole audience. I can guarantee you that at $20 vs $26 current in Australia I would have spent more money total on products than I have.

6 hours ago, Tvboy said:

Buying 2 Core sets seems like a terrible value proposition if you are a single faction player or a Scum player that's not doing all 3 factions.

Only if you're flying 5+ ships, in which case a ship base pack will cover you. As a single faction player you'll have to buy the card packs anyway to stay competitive, and scum is the largest faction, thus has the most wasted pieces gathering dust on a shelf.

Buying a second core set for swarm players isn't really an issue, either, since they're already investing a lot of money into something on a whim.

4 hours ago, Astech said:

Drastically would be about $5, which is about what I'd expect for a product with decreased handling, material and packaging costs. While a small portion of the population will buy multiples of everything, the vast majority only buy a select few ships (I myself am at about 40), so you're really not looking at the whole audience. I can guarantee you that at $20 vs $26 current in Australia I would have spent more money total on products than I have.

Buying a second core set for swarm players isn't really an issue, either, since they're already investing a lot of money into something on a whim.

I think you are a bit overestimated on that.

But either way, just because the swarm player is willing to buy more ships to fly a swarm that doesn't make sense that they should also be required to buy additional core sets. It isn't like the only reason they are flying a swarm is because they need a reason to spend money.

Then, of course, you run into the issue of people breaking, losing, or otherwise damaging the accessories. And any gains that would have been made in packing/shipping are wiped out in a single manufacturing run for just an accessory pack. FFG would have to jack up the price to an absurd level to make it make sense.

4 minutes ago, PastrySandwich said:

I think you are a bit overestimated on that.

But either way, just because the swarm player is willing to buy more ships to fly a swarm that doesn't make sense that they should also be required to buy additional core sets. It isn't like the only reason they are flying a swarm is because they need a reason to spend money.

You can buy a core for what 2 ties cost in 2.0. If ties are your goal, unless there is some card in the xpac you have to have copies off, there is no reason not to buy cores for ties. Just like the beginning of 1.0 and fa starters.

The cost of the cardboard and base isn't anywhere near $5.

1 minute ago, LordFajubi said:

You can buy a core for what 2 ties cost in 2.0. If ties are your goal, unless there is some card in the xpac you have to have copies off, there is no reason not to buy cores for ties. Just like the beginning of 1.0 and fa starters.

I was specifically speaking towards the mentality the OP stated that if you want to fly a swarm than you should have no problem buying multiple core sets since you are OK with buying more product in the first place. I disagree with that as a good reason to approach it this way.

I was not looking at what was actually the most efficient, which may be your way. I like to fly named myself.

11 hours ago, LordFajubi said:

You can buy a core for what 2 ties cost in 2.0. If ties are your goal, unless there is some card in the xpac you have to have copies off, there is no reason not to buy cores for ties. Just like the beginning of 1.0 and fa starters.

Given current 'sky is falling' sales, you can actually buy an original core for a cheaper price than a single TIE xpack in Australia.

11 hours ago, JasonCole said:

The cost of the cardboard and base isn't anywhere near $5.

The cost of the whole product might amount to $5, but probably $3. I'm talking about reasonable market price, not true cost. If FFG removed all but the model from expansions, then they'd be able to decrease the price significantly under the knowledge that people will perceive a better deal and thus on the whole spend more.

11 hours ago, PastrySandwich said:

I was specifically speaking towards the mentality the OP stated that if you want to fly a swarm than you should have no problem buying multiple core sets since you are OK with buying more product in the first place. I disagree with that as a good reason to approach it this way.

I was not looking at what was actually the most efficient, which may be your way. I like to fly named myself.

Well, if you're a new player you're buying a core set and dice pack at some point. To get one of every named TIE pilot in second edition all you need is one core set and a conversion kit max. At that point a simple base kit would get you everything you need to play with an 8-TIE swarm, which is the largest, most pressing thing you could fly in terms of plastic and cardboard.

For returning players, you've already got a tonne of bases - at least 6 small bases minimum from a 1E and 2E core set, and assuming you've bought 2 small ships or both original cores then you're fine for any size squad.

There's really no scenario in which it'll cost more money except for a medium base swarm, which is pretty unheard of (max 1 lambda/U-wing, 2 Brobots per list).

7 minutes ago, Astech said:

max 1 lambda/U-wing, 2 Brobots per list

Ehh? Are there limits on how many of these ships you can use in a list? And I was pretty sure that we could fit three IG's into a list now.

Is this some info I don't have - Where did it come from, if so?

33 minutes ago, Infinite_Maelstrom said:

Ehh? Are there limits on how many of these ships you can use in a list? And I was pretty sure that we could fit three IG's into a list now.

Is this some info I don't have - Where did it come from, if so?

Take the time to read my last post. I'm sure you'll get my point if you do.

16 hours ago, Astech said:

Take the time to read my last post. I'm sure you'll get my point if you do.

No, sorry, I still don't get it. Would you mind explaining more clearly? I assume there is something in your text that I'm interpreting wrongly, but I can't spot it.

(clearly Australia needs to update to using NZ english ?)

This thread sure has the quality content I don't usually see on the FFG forum.

4 hours ago, Infinite_Maelstrom said:

No, sorry, I still don't get it. Would you mind explaining more clearly? I assume there is something in your text that I'm interpreting wrongly, but I can't spot it.

(clearly Australia needs to update to using NZ english ?)

Stay out of this NZ - you can't fly sheep. ?

I was essentially highlighting that it's unheard of to fly, say, 4 lambdas in a list together. It's technically possible, sure (I've done it at least twice, won once), but it's simply not something worth marketing in any way over, like if somebody couldn't fly 6 naked HWKs nobody's going to shed a tear. So sure, you might temporarily miss out on the opportunity to fly 4 medium base ships, but that's really a tiny loss compared to the bulk savings for a ton of people.

And, since the rebel conversion kit has been fully spoiled to include 4 medium bases, there's really to oomph to the argument anyway, at least for returning players.

On 6/4/2018 at 7:10 PM, Astech said:

...You'd be adding 9 bases, of maybe $3 total cost, and while you're adding a little cardboard you're taking some out as well, so maybe $1 extra cost. Finally, the cost of packing it all together might be as high as $1, so 5 all up. ...

Be careful, that is a lot of speculation without calculations, test markets and deals. Don’t forget a business maybe to print the cardboard for cost $X however will have plastic bases thrown in for free. (Or any number of deals, just giving an example). Then, once you start mass producing the printing company will give a discount for a certain quantity.... blah blah blah, it is very hard to determine the individual cost of the included products just based on sticker price. You can guess, but then you are guessing.

On 6/4/2018 at 9:00 PM, Larky Bobble said:

"Drastically" is fifty cents?

Edit Note: You're looking at an inelastic demand curve for addicted players. They will buy, irrespective. Increased sales do not always correlate with increased profits. They wouldn't lower the price by more than fifty cents per ship. No point...

I agree.

What is the definition of “drastically”. 10%? That is the sales tax in most places; I would not classify that as drastically.

20%? So a $15 blister is now $12. There are some would say that isn’t drastically either.

I like your thinking about making the cost to the public cheaper, just a very steep cliff to climb to figure out costs. Lots of variables.

20 minutes ago, Ccwebb said:

Be careful, that is a lot of speculation without calculations, test markets and deals. Don’t forget a business maybe to print the cardboard for cost $X however will have plastic bases thrown in for free. (Or any number of deals, just giving an example). Then, once you start mass producing the printing company will give a discount for a certain quantity.... blah blah blah, it is very hard to determine the individual cost of the included products just based on sticker price. You can guess, but then you are guessing.

What is the definition of “drastically”. 10%? That is the sales tax in most places; I would not classify that as drastically.

20%? So a $15 blister is now $12. There are some would say that isn’t drastically either.

I like your thinking about making the cost to the public cheaper, just a very steep cliff to climb to figure out costs. Lots of variables.

You'll never see plastic thrown in for free, not of the quantity FFG requires. That'd be a massive loss for a company even if they charged a big premium on cardboard printing. Of course, both manufacturers are almost certainly different companies, given the entirely different manufacturing processes.

The bases are almost certainly either die-cast or injection moulded. Given the tolerance needed for clear plastic parts without small undulations (so it doesn't wobble) and withing nominal dimension tolerances (so as to not give unfair advantages to players with smaller bases), it's unlikely a mould will last more than 100'000 cycles of production. The mould will definitely cost more than 100k, especially given the intricate detailing on the bases like logos, etc. So you're looking at a rough estimate of $1 per small base. But of course you're not just producing one kind of base; you're producing 3. Large and medium bases aren't going to be anywhere near as common, meaning the investment in the mould is much slower to pay off, and the moulds inherently cost more due to the larger size.

So maybe you're looking at $1.5 per base on average, which is a conservative estimate, since it doesn't take into account the production costs of personnel, heating of the material (an enormous cost), actual plastic material cost and so on. It really could be as high as $3 per base. Once you add in the final cost of the part - packaging, shipping, unpacking and integration into the final pack - you're probably looking at an extra 10 cents of cost. I''ll acknowledge that I'm not an insider expert, so maybe I'm off by a factor of 9 (very conservative here, for the sake of argument) or so, leading to my original conservative estimate of $3 for 9 bases between 3 different sizes. Injection moulding and die casting is quite cheap, but not as cheap as people often think.

The same arguments apply at a toned-down level for the cards in each pack - they're just superfluous when you can buy 1+ of each card in its own pack. So that's something like up to $1 from each pack's production cost that can just be eliminated by changing the distribution strategy.

I was using Australian dollars previously, in which case a pack goes down from $26 to $20-21. It doesn't seem like much at all, but when you compare it to the rest of the market, you could buy a whole extra MtG booster with that money, or if you buy 4 packs you get an extra one for 'free'. A lot of consumerism happens, and that's the way products are marketed a good deal of the time.

A middle ground could also be reached pretty easily if FFG's hesitant to increase the buy-in price with the core set, they can just remake the base packs, adding two medium bases, thus allowing people to tailor their whole base collection without buying heaps of core sets.

10 hours ago, Astech said:

A middle ground could also be reached pretty easily if FFG's hesitant to increase the buy-in price with the core set, they can just remake the base packs, adding two medium bases, thus allowing people to tailor their whole base collection without buying heaps of core sets.

Sure if they end up having to make less bases overall there is room to come down a little on the price, but you still have an issue with the lost/broken pieces. You can't just have people have to buy a new core set just to get a single base to fly the ship they just paid for in a blister. The packaging and shipping on that is going to price it basically at cost. I don't see it being a real option, not to mention that you are asking stores to give up valuable shelf space.

That being said, I think the biggest hurdle is the mentality of the situation. Regardless of people actually being able to save money to a hypothetical situation, you are asking them to sell a incomplete product. That's a tough one. Even if most people (and they probably do) just open a pack and throw components into a bag, case, etc with everything else, you know when you buy the product it is whole. That is really a big deal. And I get that if you put up the two head-to-head with or without that 95% is probably buying that cheaper one, but that isn't what people are seeing. In this situation, they are only seeing 1 item at a 1 price that doesn't include all the parts it needs. Rational or not, buying something that requires something else just to assemble is not going to feel great for the consumer and is just something companies aren't gonna want to do.

I almost hate to keep feeding this, but the way the product is nested for shipping, making the blisters shorter (hanger top to bottom of ship bubble) isn't going to add appreciable shipping space. They get packed in cases like Tetris pieces.

If they don't, then someone is an idiot and should be fired from the packaging design department.

On June 5, 2018 at 7:47 AM, Astech said:

Drastically would be about $5, which is about what I'd expect for a product with decreased handling, material and packaging costs. While a small portion of the population will buy multiples of everything, the vast majority only buy a select few ships (I myself am at about 40), so you're really not looking at the whole audience. I can guarantee you that at $20 vs $26 current in Australia I would have spent more money total on products than I have.

Micro vs Macro economics, man. Your personal expectations and preferences mean little when lookng at aggregate demand based on price. I would imagine that returning customers are where the real profits are, and they are hooked.

Along with presentation and ease factors for newer players it is obvious why they don't fulfill your wishes. And they can squeeze an extra few bucks profit by shipping a bit more card!

The great lie in economics is that all the players in a system are rational. Face it, you're hooked, just like me...