12 hours ago, Mep said:What we know, FFG canned IA. They don't do that if the game was making bank for them. Seriously, high school level stuff here. Not sure why this is even a discussion.
No body is say it was a "great seller" at the time it was canceled. But you haven't provided any source for your original statement that it "was never a great seller." Just your own anecdotal experience.
6 hours ago, Uninvited Guest said:
No body is say it was a "great seller" at the time it was canceled. But you haven't provided any source for your original statement that it "was never a great seller." Just your own anecdotal experience.
You actually are thinking it out sold X-wing or something...... yeah, okay.
Imagine if the original agreement to sell it included a percentage to go to the license holder (in this case, Hasbro) ?
That'd be business reason enough to kill it for wholly profiting product, even if that new product was less successful (which is arguable), since it stops direct funding of competitors...
3 hours ago, Mep said:You actually are thinking it out sold X-wing or something...... yeah, okay.
How'd you make that leap?
11 hours ago, cnemmick said:In the Q&A, Andrew Navarro said he'd like to keep printing IA but the "business reasons" that caused the end of IA may prevent reprints. It was the most ambiguous answer he gave about IA, so maybe we will see some reprints getting into retailers.
Do you mean printing new content or reprints? In the transcript of of the Q&A they put up in September (I have linked it below), the question he was asked was specifically about physical expansions, not reprints. I agree that is not likely, but it isn't confirmed by that answer. I really wish that more than one question had been asked. If it has been announced somewhere I've missed knowing for sure would be much better than lingering uncertainty.
https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2019/9/6/scry-the-future/
1 hour ago, coogee78 said:Do you mean printing new content or reprints?
I mean reprints of existing material: Core Set, expansions, etc. I believe he answered that question at the end of the video and it was not added to the transcript news post.
6 hours ago, Drasnighta said:Imagine if the original agreement to sell it included a percentage to go to the license holder (in this case, Hasbro) ?
We know the distribution went through Hasbro's distribution due to the noise raised about the change, so it did.
2 hours ago, cnemmick said:I mean reprints of existing material: Core Set, expansions, etc. I believe he answered that question at the end of the video and it was not added to the transcript news post.
Rephrased: "Will Imperial Assault stay in stock?" "It's not up to me."
It could however be an answer to "Will stores still stock Imperial Assault?", or the fact that if stores clear out IA stuff from their shelves, there is no pressure to reprint.
On 10/15/2019 at 11:58 PM, Tvboy said:That's not what I said. You took something from 2 separate paragraphs and combined into something else.
Just to follow up on this, I really meant it as a joke. But I really feel like I should note something from your original post:
On 10/15/2019 at 7:27 PM, Tvboy said:You can google this and read posts on BGG from people who were in the know back in 2014.
That is the entirety of one of the paragraphs in question. What does the word "this" refer to if not the information in previous paragraph?
17 hours ago, Uninvited Guest said:How'd you make that leap?
When something is popular, i.e. a great seller, it is pretty self evident. IA never had a Geek and Sundry show or a bunch of pod casts about it. No, that is D&D, which is a great seller. No need for a source on that one, pretty darn obvious. It is very obvious IA never did anywhere near the business X Wing did, FFG's biggest hit. Not that hard to figure out, kinda like when someone is either just slow or trying to troll. BTW, the sky is blue, you need a source for that one too or can you figure that one out on your own?
Look, IA was a good game. I feel it is sad it was never as popular as it should have been. It happens. Some times good things just don't do well. This is what happens to products that don't do well, they get canceled.
As for reprints, it is hard to say. FFG just doesn't communicate what they are reprinting. They used to do so on their upcoming page, but that isn't well maintained as of late. They still have the first starter decks from SW Destiny as awaiting reprint, for over a year now, and those are completely out of print and out of standard rotation. I am not sure FFG even knows what they will do when stocks of IA are out of stock and new stock gets requested. I have to say though, if you were wanting something IA wise and can find it in stock right now, I wouldn't wait on it. It may just be a now or never type of deal.
1 hour ago, Mep said:When something is popular, i.e. a great seller, it is pretty self evident. IA never had a Geek and Sundry show or a bunch of pod casts about it. No, that is D&D, which is a great seller. No need for a source on that one, pretty darn obvious. It is very obvious IA never did anywhere near the business X Wing did, FFG's biggest hit. Not that hard to figure out, kinda like when someone is either just slow or trying to troll. BTW, the sky is blue, you need a source for that one too or can you figure that one out on your own?
I can see the sky. I can't see IA's sales numbers. You're using subjective terms like "great seller." They continued making IA products for four years, based on that I'd say it sold well. Some might say it was a great seller based on that. D&D? That's a cash cow, I'd say you're well beyond a "great seller" at that point.
All of your arguments are based on assumptions. Watch, I can do it to: "Hey, remember when they stopped making x-wing 1E? Guess it wasn't a great seller... they had to revamp it and make a second edition." "Hey, Warhammer 40k doesn't have a Critical Role-esque show... guess it's not that popular." And, no I'm not comparing IA to those games. I'm saying you made an observation that led to an assumption that you're now asserting is correct based on no hard evidence.
So yes, you've been asked for a source that you don't appear to have
1 hour ago, Mep said:This is what happens to products that don't do well, they get canceled.
I can't say I've run a business or managed product lines, but I do have a business degree and I've managed organozational budgets in college (student government). So I'm not an expert, but I do know a thing or to about thos. I can say that this isn't technically true.
Example: maybe you've heard of "overhead costs." Overhead costs don't change based on the number of products you have, rent would be one such cost. Most cost management systems divide overhead equally among all your products. So cancelling a product results in more overhead associated with each product. I remember my professor gave us an example where a product was losing $2k per month, but when when we canceled the product it caused another, previously profitable, product to go into the red; and if we continued canceling products as they became unprofitable we eventually got down to one unprofitable product.
@Uninvited Guest Yeah, you are confused. A great seller would be a cash chow. In the English language you have horrid, bad, mediocre, good and great. Not much beyond great, so yeah, that would be the same as saying cash cow. Maybe you should have taken some English classes while in school. You wouldn't be so confused right now.
Also, Asmodee has a lot of product lines. Those overhead costs get spread rather thin. Not actually a thing with the IA decision. There might me a reason you aren't running a business or managing product lines. Hope the English lesson helps you out and you do a bit better in the future.
2 hours ago, Mep said:Maybe you should have taken some English classes while in school.
They were required. I did great in them. Not outstanding, but great.
Loads of false equivalences on one side of the argument here. And no - the sky is not inherently 'blue'. Someone should have taken some science classes while in school.
Legion has been a great example of how close FFG CAN interact with its player base. Luke Eddy and Alex Davey regularly interact with the Legion player base. They do this through a few means; appearing on fan run podcasts, live stream plays on the FFG website where they answer questions from the chat while playing, actually physically being in the Legion Discord chat (which is a massive community of players), appearing at both official FFG and fan run major tournaments where they also sit in on streams and commentate on games/answer questions/even spoil future content ;). They are regularly updating the playerbase on the direction of the game and future they see, as they have explained they are currently moving at a 5 year plan pace, and want to set Legion up to go past a decade of strong support and play. They even just recently did a points re balance after year one, and plan to do one annually and on an 'as needed' basis.
So this is definitely not a step in the GW-40K relationship direction, its actually the opposite. It is sad that IA wasn't able to get even a fraction of this same attention or transparency from it's developers.. but as soured as I was on FFG with IA, Legion not only erased all of that, but replaced it with something positive.
If you look at the amount of content IA got it really is staggering, like to work your way through all the campaigns is mind boggling. My group played every campaign at least once and there is still a whole pile of side missions we never even got to... and then a smaller pile of the actual story missions to boot. I'm in the group of players that would have much rather seen an Endor, or even Rogue One, box instead of Rebels. And I loved Rebels.. but at the same time I can't argue with the content that we did get. I'd love to see them continue to round out the game by releasing a few more App campaigns based on the rest of the content, Bespin, Jabba, HoTE etc..
If they ever do re make IA in a new version, I hope they just stick to the campaign. Skirmish was a lot of fun and for a last minute add on and had a great run, but I think it became evident that the developers struggled to keep both afloat, and I would rather just see all the resources thrown into one side.. and with Legion out we definitely won't ever see just a pure skirmish mode.
My problem with IA was never the content that was released or anything like that, the game had a great run here making it five years, but the way it ended was horribly done by FFG. The cone of silence around the future of the game, having to find out in a last minute question at a Q&A at Gencon, they should have come out and told the playerbase sooner and been more clear about the future of the game. I agreed with Dave Navvareth? whatever his name is, that the game has a ton of content and could be seen as a complete product based on said content, however I had strong feelings towards how the ending of the game was handled.
Edited by FrogTriggerOn 10/19/2019 at 12:10 PM, Uninvited Guest said:They were required. I did great in them. Not outstanding, but great.
Some would say you could do fantastic or even amazing. Possibly fabulous too.
Let's look at the sequel trilogy. We now know something nobody knew early on, that Lucas, while being paid 4.5 billion, would still receive residuals for content that employed the characters he developed. So Disney, being a bunch of tight-fisted white slavers, decided to invent some horrible Ersatz characters and make as little use as possible of OT characters, so they wouldn't have to pay George as much. Maybe the same thing happened at FFG. The cost of making a campaign might, probably is, higher than banging out some unit cards for Legion. Plus, IA, we assume, had a deal with Hasbro wherein Hasbro was getting a piece of the IA profits. Legion is easier to produce because there isn't the time consumption of crafting a campaign. Legion doesn't require any deals with other companies. So IA could have been a good seller, but not enough of a good seller, and Legion probably is a better bang for the buck. It is like the original Battlestar Galactica. It had extremely high television ratings for the time, but each episode cost a lot to make, and was time consuming to boot. Much easier to squeeze out a couple more modern day rom coms, or cop procedurals, where the profit per episode is higher. BSG didn't get cancelled because it wasn't being watched, it got cancelled because the profit margin wasn't sufficient to make the bean counters happy.
On 10/19/2019 at 11:15 AM, Mep said:@Uninvited Guest Yeah, you are confused. A great seller would be a cash chow. In the English language you have horrid, bad, mediocre, good and great. Not much beyond great, so yeah, that would be the same as saying cash cow. Maybe you should have taken some English classes while in school. You wouldn't be so confused right now.
dude are you ok? need a hug? no need to sweat at a keyboard, and be so passive aggressive.
4 hours ago, Rikalonius said:We now know something nobody knew early on, that Lucas, while being paid 4.5 billion, would still receive residuals for content that employed the characters he developed.
I hate to ask at this point, but do you have a source? I did a Google search and couldn't find it myself. I did find a Quora question where there were a number of responses stating that the only residuals he receives are for the work he did directing four of the films. I don't consider that a reliable source though.
I did find the 8-K form that was submitted to the Security and Exchange Commission.
http://edgar.secdatabase.com/2355/119312512441509/filing-main.htm
That states that the agreement was $4.05B, half cash and half Disney stock. It also says that Disney planned on buying the stock back over the next two years. It'd be pretty easy to bury the residuals you're referring to in the buy back.
Edited by Uninvited Guest6 hours ago, Rikalonius said:So Disney, being a bunch of tight-fisted white slavers, decided to invent some horrible Ersatz characters and make as little use as possible of OT characters, so they wouldn't have to pay George as much.
It's also possible they did a ton of market research and concluded that the next generation of kids would be more interested in the next trilogy if all the characters weren't in their 60s and 70s.
On 10/18/2019 at 6:10 PM, Uninvited Guest said:They were required. I did great in them. Not outstanding, but great.
Outstanding and great are synonyms. You've miss quoted me just to start an argument and now you are just trolling. This behavior is not appreciated.
28 minutes ago, Mep said:On 10/18/2019 at 9:10 PM, Uninvited Guest said:They were required. I did great in them. Not outstanding, but great.
Outstanding and great are synonyms. You've miss quoted me just to start an argument and now you are just trolling. This behavior is not appreciated.
Outstanding and Great, are colloquially treated as Outstanding being better than Great.
And all though you say HE is trying to start an argument, you are the one that drew assumptions from what he said, whether that was on purpose or a misunderstanding as you are using two different scales, I don't know. If you want me to quote you on when YOU misquoting him here...
On 10/17/2019 at 6:09 PM, Mep said:You actually are thinking it out sold X-wing or something...... yeah, okay.
He never said that he thought it was a better seller than X-wing, he said it could have been a great seller once.
His scale is not on the same scale as yours. His scale goes at least a few steps above just "great". For him(I'm making assumptions here so go to Uninvited Guest for confirmation, and please @Uninvited Guest , Feel free to correct me) Cash Cow, is better than Amazing/Outstanding Seller, Than Great Seller, than the rest of such a scale, at the very least.
That could be the whole venom of this argument, the fact that you two are using different scales. Your scale is fairly limited, a lot of other people use synonym's as ranking higher or lower, seeing as a lot of synonym's mean slightly different thing's, ranking them greater than or lower than Great.
This last comment of yours, was the last straw for me, I hate it when people try and turn an argument in moral favor in them when they were the first to shoot the insults, the first to misjudge and then ignore the other person trying to correct them. I really hate it. Please don't try and take that route. Just don't.
-Arctic
You guys should play more and argue less about things that ultimately don't matter.
5 minutes ago, ArcticJedi said:For him(I'm making assumptions here so go to Uninvited Guest for confirmation, and please @Uninvited Guest , Feel free to correct me) Cash Cow, is better than Amazing/Outstanding Seller, Than Great Seller, than the rest of such a scale, at the very least.
Well by definition a cash cow is generates a lot of profit and is used to fund other ventures. So, good seller, great seller, amazing seller, that doesn't really matter. The important thing is that it's not eating up a substantial portion of it's own profit so that that money can be used elsewhere. Earlier I said it needs to be a great seller over a long period of time, which was really an oversimplification in an effort to avoid getting into product lifecycles.
1 hour ago, Mep said:Outstanding and great are synonyms. You've miss quoted me just to start an argument and now you are just trolling. This behavior is not appreciated.
No, I'm not looking to start an argument nor am I trolling. I also didn't misquote you, that's what you said. You attempted insult me in your previous post and rather than engage I deflected with a sarcastic remark intended to make a point.
As for your statement that "outstanding and great are synonyms," you might want to check a thesaurus. You have "great" ranked as better than "good," but "great" is listed as a synonym of "good." Therefore you can't eliminate a word being used to indicate that something is better than great, even if they are synonyms.
Source: https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/good?s=t
You are all arguing over nothing at this point. To me, the clearest evidence that X wing sold better than IA is that I've seen X-wing for sale at frickin Barnes and Noble. Somebody at FFG and at B&N thinks that this is so easy to sell and makes so much money that they can sell it at a place that its core audience would NEVER go to buy or play games. I ain't never seen no Core Box for IA at Barnes & Noble. In the absence of market data, that tells us all we need to know.