11 minutes ago, EVIL INC said:

Supply and demand.Firespray isnot in as great need. generally, you will likely only see someone get it for boba fett effect or the "cool value." Not to mention you see the older ones for sale online for dirt cheap.

Now you see a whole new fleet coming out with only a very very limited variety of ships available to it and you see a greater "need" with less availability. Only stands to reason they would charge more. at least while the "need" is high.

Price needs to be high enough to cover the costs of meeting the projected demand (overhead) while maintaining a profit level that investors will accept. What the overhead ends up being is the sum of a complicated mess of crap most of us don't usually look at...

Which means they will wring as much as they can out of the "sure things". I'd look for the prices to get a little lower on them down the road a ways.

We need to remember that they DO need to make money on it. After all, if they dont, they stop adding to it or sell it off and we run the risk of losing the game and having to start fresh possibly later on.

7 minutes ago, EVIL INC said:

Which means they will wring as much as they can out of the "sure things". I'd look for the prices to get a little lower on them down the road a ways.

We need to remember that they DO need to make money on it. After all, if they dont, they stop adding to it or sell it off and we run the risk of losing the game and having to start fresh possibly later on.

We can hope they will lower the price as time goes on, but prices on everything here in the states are continually creeping up so at best they price they've set won't increase for several years. They still have to feed their families tomorrow...

People don't see the price an issue for the Firespray because 1. most people have it and 2. it was originally released in a large box. ARC-170 is being released in effectively a larger box than it was in 1.0

39 minutes ago, BVRCH said:

But it still increased exactly as all the other ships did. The Firespray set the precedent for medium base expansions cost. The volume of content in both packs is almost identical. The Slave only received a repaint as well. How is the ARC-170 any different?

The Firespray was a large ship and was $30 in 1.0 so it didn't even change price in 2.0.

The line is changing. Higher on the low end and same or cheaper on the high end.

The jump from 20 to 30 feels really bad as it’s the worst proportional change.

The arc is such a beautiful ship.

paying $20 for a Jedi star fighter and droid fighter is so lame.

The droids should be 20-30 for a pair.

Why sell it at $20 if you guys will buy it at $30?

25 minutes ago, Animewarsdude said:

The Firespray was a large ship and was $30 in 1.0 so it didn't even change price in 2.0.

And? Large bases in general went up in price. Its not a large base anymore.

The ARC and the Firespray are in the same category in 2nd ed. It makes sense they cost the same price.

Well, there's a couple of other things to consider. With the introduction of the middle sized base, there's more carboard waste. With the change on how upgrades are being packaged, FFG is printing alot more of them. With the new sculpts you have new design costs, new die costs and new packaging. Actually new packaging all the way around for 2E.

1 hour ago, Hiemfire said:

It would be primarily focused in materials, fuel, labor, export fees manufacturing end, and in-port fees our end. Depending on location and political issues, materials and fuel will also be subject to the same in-port and export fees. Materials are both what the product itself is made from and what is required for the processing of the product material. While large production volume can mitigate this to an extent, some production methods can't cope with volumes large rapidly enough to fully offset the increases, and the demand for the level of volume of the product (pretty little ships) may not be high enough to justify the increase in storage expenses much less the increase in production. FFG could have always dropped the quality of the materials used in what they are selling, like Galoob did with it's collectables miniatures (the Micro Machines line of Star Wars and Star Trek minis went from pretty good to absolute crap over the course of couple of years) a couple of decades back, but I find it doubtful FFG would like to risk the hit to its image doing so would result in.

show me the specific cause(s) of that increase.

7 minutes ago, hawk32 said:

show me the specific cause(s) of that increase.

Go back to heckling your "students", I'm not one of them. Without more information the knee jerk "**** GREEDY BUSINESSES" holds no water and is nothing more than the out and out ignorant whining of someone who thinks they should just be given what they want. As someone who supposedly gets paid to teach economics that should be obvious to you. What goes into the price of things on the consumer end is allot more than just "Me want to make big money, me charge big"...

16 minutes ago, BVRCH said:

And? Large bases in general went up in price. Its not a large base anymore.

The ARC and the Firespray are in the same category in 2nd ed. It makes sense they cost the same price.

Well, can you imagine that some people might be upset that a product they bought for $20 before is now $30 whereas they wouldn't be upset that a product they bought for $30 is still $30?

I understand the they are both medium base ships, I'm just trying to explain that that some people would be upset over that price change for the Arc while the Firespray isn't too direct a comparison since its price didn't increase at all.

6 minutes ago, Animewarsdude said:

Well, can you imagine that some people might be upset that a product they bought for $20 before is now $30 whereas they wouldn't be upset that a product they bought for $30 is still $30?

I understand the they are both medium base ships, I'm just trying to explain that that some people would be upset over that price change for the Arc while the Firespray isn't too direct a comparison since its price didn't increase at all.

No I can't, for so many reasons that's completely nonsensical. But I understand you're just playing devil's advocate for me and I get that now.

-came for ARC-170 talk, left with questionable economics knowledge-

3 minutes ago, Kehl_Aecea said:

-came for ARC-170 talk, left with questionable economics knowledge-

It is a thread about pricing...

1 hour ago, Hiemfire said:

Go back to heckling your "students", I'm not one of them. Without more information the knee jerk "**** GREEDY BUSINESSES" holds no water and is nothing more than the out and out ignorant whining of someone who thinks they should just be given what they want. As someone who supposedly gets paid to teach economics that should be obvious to you. What goes into the price of things on the consumer end is allot more than just "Me want to make big money, me charge big"...

Quality argument 🙄 . I'd point out that only one of us has used the word "greedy."

If manufa cturing input pri ces are the cause of MSRP increases, why haven't prices for armada or legion jumped?

51 minutes ago, hawk32 said:

Quality argument 🙄 . I'd point out that only one of us has used the word "greedy."

If manufa cturing input pri ces are the cause of MSRP increases, why haven't prices for armada or legion jumped?

Because X-Wing 1.0's prices were set years before those games existed and were long overdue a price rise? Armada ships always came in $20, $30 and $40 packs since Wave 1.

Maybe I'm misremembering, but years ago I remember reading somewhere that FFG was making next to nothing on their X-Wing stuff. They had released the ships at just barely over cost, and after the game took off, they had plans to eventually increase the price to the point that they made a reasonable amount of money off of the ships. I certainly don't begrudge them a reasonable profit off of minis of this quality/paint job.

Also, much lol at the Heimfire/hawk32 debate. My experience with the former fellow is allowing me to see a bit of a pattern here...

12 hours ago, hawk32 said:

I'll bet you all you want... I get paid to teach economics.

Ah, economics, the discipline where every explanation is underdetermined by countless others, and its seemingly impossible to falsify any economic theory, because no matter how poor the performance of its predictive models it always has staunch defenders that can explain away the failure by pointing to other background conditions. The economic theory that is considered accurate depends on who is in power at the moment and how well that theory serves their agenda.

How will you win the bet when he can just easily drum another "expert" with an entirely different account of the trade wars' effects? 🤣

8 hours ago, rawbean said:

Because X-Wing 1.0's prices were set years before those games existed and were long overdue a price rise? Armada ships always came in $20, $30 and $40 packs since Wave 1.

Well, since everyone else is spouting off their unsupported theory, here's mine!! And it has a bit to do with the above.

I think FFG has realized over the last 5 years that most players only buy 1 ship of any given type. Tournament players only want the best ace/pilot, and only need 3-4 ships in any event to play.

They have failed to support players that would buy fleets, so no one is picking up 4-6 X-Wings to run Red Squadron.

They have also killed the swarm, another good way to get players to buy multiple models.

Lastly, with 7 factions, players are now likely to buy LESS THAN ONE of any given ship, because they don't want to collect all factions. And by promising not to cross factions, FFG has assured themselves of no card-based extra sales of models.

So, if you can't sell a lot on a small margin, you need to sell a few at a large margin.

Historically, FFG has never had cheap products. This is one reason for it is still on the market - and have a quite extensive range. The Reccomended Retail Price, by the way, is one thing, the final price you pay is another: online, ebay, and at convention markets you can get heavy discount. I have bought Lando Falcon for 20 euro (aka a little bit more than 20 us dollars) having the patience to search and wait. I would never pay full price for something do not seduce me totally (aka the CR-90 or the Super Star Destroyer) having a majestic appeal per se. And, standing I have already 6 ARC 170 from Rebel Alliance, and I am in the works to repaint them for Clone Wars, you see that if the new model is not very appealing they will never have my money for it. But if they should but out a bigger Y-Wing, or a very bigger B-Wing they will be hit by my wallet so swift that they could need E.R. assistance.

14 hours ago, Vontoothskie said:

Or is it just me?

Not just you. It is crazy to me as well. The fact that they changed the base to medium doesn't justify the 50% price increase to me, but my opinion doesn't matter.

It isn't just you but... The ARC was a $20 blister expansion in 1.0 and is one of the larger non-boxed models. And as noted "medium base" ship seems to be $30 now so it isn't out of line with the overall pricing. I think Darth Meanie hits a lot of good points about most of the player base just getting one model. I'd also note that you'll likely be able to field your Rebel ARCs in Republic lists to some degree re-enforcing the points about just getting one.

So I'm disappointed in the price point because I want at least two but I don't find it some sort of unspeakable outrage.

46 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

And by promising not to cross factions, FFG has assured themselves of no card-based extra sales of models.  

They found a solution to that problem mighty fast by just throwing it out of the window in wave 1

13 hours ago, Hiemfire said:

Go back to heckling your "students", I'm not one of them. Without more information the knee jerk "**** GREEDY BUSINESSES" holds no water and is nothing more than the out and out ignorant whining of someone who thinks they should just be given what they want. As someone who supposedly gets paid to teach economics that should be obvious to you. What goes into the price of things on the consumer end is allot more than just "Me want to make big money, me charge big"...

The last I heard Asmodee was taken over by a private equity group. Capitalism is presently based on short term profit maximisation to satisfy shareholders (otherwise the directors could be jailed). You can call it greed if you want, but it´ s the nature of investment, really.

As someone who pulled out at 2.0, I don` t care about the prices (but I do love a good debate, especially about board games and S.Wars) but I thought the increased card count was the justification for the price rises across the board (bar Boba). Snazzy packing makes it easier to tolerate. Standardising prices to box (base) sizes is probably for customer convenience, strangely. Wait till the YV-666 comes out to see if holds...

However, from a debating point of view.-- You made claims that you are now avoiding and appear to have no means of substantiating. You have resorted to an insulting tone against someone who appears far better informed than yourself. Poor form, the onus is on you to substantiate or withdraw your claim.

And finally... The two forms of thought in economics are based not on names. In reality they are Profit Maximisation or Utility (satisafaction) Maximisation. What is best? Everything else descends from that. (Marx was in favour of Private Limited Companies, for example, whereas Keynes was not). But if you think FFG/Asmodee/Equity groups are in it for the Utility maximisation... errmm... good luck!

You may be able to guess the second subject I teach after mathematics...