It could be my naivety, but I don't think Disney is a stupid company.

Given that FFG is currently doing so **** well with X-Wing, even if they weren't producing any other SW game, I can't see them pulling the licence early, as some folks speculated back when LFL was bought. Nobody seems to know precisely how long FFG has the licence for (they refused to answer that part of my question), but I can perhaps see a bit of wrangling in a re-negotiation when that eventually expires. I would assume, though, that FFG would have a very strong position, given the success they have had that has now all but eclipsed the fact they put out no actual product for the first year of having said licence. I think it has been said before that Disney has been observed to prefer to keep all of its produce in-house, and they own Hasbro or something, but I seriously believe that they would be stupid to end the agreement with FFG in order to produce more SW monopoly or whatever. So long as FFG continues to make serious money off this licence, I don't think we have anything to really worry about.

All of these are my own opinions, however, and are not backed up with any kind of insider or statistical information whatsoever

I suppose my issue with your points are simple. Just because FFG is doing great with the license doesn't mean Disney benefits from it at all. Im sure they pay a one time licensing fee, and then weather it sells a billion copies, or a thousand copies Disney is paid the same amount. SO when it comes back around, if it's doing as well as we all see, perhaps they will want even more money.

That said, I agree with an earlier post, I'll just play and worry about this tomorrow.

As for comparing it to aGoT, its pretty hard to do so. That license is ridiculous cheap and Martin nearly gives it a way to anyone who will give him a moment

It's actually not a one time fee, it's per product and based upon sales. That is, if it's the same as it was for previous companies.

hmm... interesting if true.

As much fun as killing Jar Jar would be, I'd still prefer they stick to original trilogy and EU. Cards with prequel material would give me a serious case of the sads.

Honestly, I don't really care.

I feel the same way about this as I do about the idea that the game is "unrealistic" because a character can fight a starship. The game is not about reproducing the narrative of the movies, it's about playing around with Star Wars tropes in a clever and strategically satisfying way.

This is the reason why Admiral Ackbar's card lets you spring a trap on your opponent. Does Admiral Ackbar spring traps in the movies? Is he a big sneaky trap-meister? No! He gets a trap sprung on him. He has the hilarious and iconic "It's a TRERP!" line in the movies, and the designers have a laugh (and a very clever one) with his card, while making it more than a laugh--into meaningful play.

This is what this game is about. And this is why it won't bother me when we see a Jar Jar card. Just because the first movie is a disaster of filmmaking doesn't mean that the tropes aren't fun and that they can't be turned into golden game design. Imagine, say, a Jar Jar card where the mechanics cleverly and subtly nod at the reality that all the fans hate him--that is a Jar Jar card I could love, and that's the kind of thinking that is behind this game.

Netrunner was dead for a decade or more and still playable -- then it got picked up again

As much fun as killing Jar Jar would be, I'd still prefer they stick to original trilogy and EU. Cards with prequel material would give me a serious case of the sads.

Honestly, I don't really care.

I feel the same way about this as I do about the idea that the game is "unrealistic" because a character can fight a starship. The game is not about reproducing the narrative of the movies, it's about playing around with Star Wars tropes in a clever and strategically satisfying way.

This is the reason why Admiral Ackbar's card lets you spring a trap on your opponent. Does Admiral Ackbar spring traps in the movies? Is he a big sneaky trap-meister? No! He gets a trap sprung on him. He has the hilarious and iconic "It's a TRERP!" line in the movies, and the designers have a laugh (and a very clever one) with his card, while making it more than a laugh--into meaningful play.

This is what this game is about. And this is why it won't bother me when we see a Jar Jar card. Just because the first movie is a disaster of filmmaking doesn't mean that the tropes aren't fun and that they can't be turned into golden game design. Imagine, say, a Jar Jar card where the mechanics cleverly and subtly nod at the reality that all the fans hate him--that is a Jar Jar card I could love, and that's the kind of thinking that is behind this game.

Figured I would mention that Ackbar stole his most famous line from Leia. When Luke arrives in Cloud City in Empire, she yells "Luke! It's a trap!"

I do think that the OP has a valid concern. As far as the responses to the concerns of the OP. I do agree that enjoy it while you can. All games have a shelf life. Some longer than others. Invest in the game what you want and can afford.

I also should voice an issue with LCG's. I do like that fact that for the most part we get two of each objectives in a force pack and we are not buying up boosters. But where is the entry point for new players, say, next year when the investment to get into the game is significant (over $200). I would bring up Thrones. A new player would have to make a sizeable investment to get into the game at this point (and most players will want to aquire all the cards). Many players at my LGS, despite loving the series on HBO and reading the books, bypassed the game for that reason. They went for Star Wars and Netrunner. Magic has overcome this with the Type 2 block system. Say what you will but this is an issue I would love for FFG to address at some point.

The difference between Magic, L5R (two successful CCGs with rotating legality), etc. and Fantasy Flight's card games is that the former are about worlds of the gaming companies' own creation, whereas all LCGs are based on an external IP with the exception of Android: Netrunner, which is more popular for its history as a game than anything else.

The reason this is important is because, as governors of the story expressed on their cards, Wizards and AEG are able to communicate an ongoing storyline that adapts to the rotating card pool. With each new year of Magic comes a new or fondly-remembered plane that is that year's focus, and thus it provides a reasonable explanation as to why cards from older sets (and the faraway planes they belong to) are rarely seen in official play. Similarly, the story of L5R has a rotating cast, with major characters regularly being killed off so as to free up design space for new characters.

Fantasy Flight can't do this. They are restricted by the mythos of each respective IP on which their games are based, and the limited cast of characters who figure prominently in each. If, for example, you suddenly couldn't play Mara Jade in sanctioned play, a lot of EU fans who play the game would be upset. And there is no in-universe rationalization for why she wouldn't be available. Their only solution, then, would be to reintroduce essential characters in each new cycle of Force Packs. But this would quickly become predictable and boring, especially for those same EU fans who are eager to see more and more of the galaxy far, far away revealed in card form.

I suppose there could be a system in which the Core Set remains playable permanently, but expansion is restricted to the current Force cycle and one or two previous cycles, but this should only be done with a long preamble, and Boba Fett needs to be revised for future printings of the Core Set (and possibly with a promotional version of the new card available as a participation prize).

I like others in this discussion thread would invite you to enjoy the game for what it is and for as long as you have fun with it. Even if they lose the license, this is the kind of game you can break out years down the line and have fun with right out of th ebox.

Also consider that this is an LCG. Aside from a good selection of very affordable expansion decks, there really isn't a whole lot you have to invest financially and in terms of time chasing down rare cards and building superior decks than your opponents. So, again, if the license goes away, you're left with the same cards everyone else has and you STILL will have to rely solely on your own ingenuity and luck of the draw with the same cards your opposing players have. These LCGc and DBGs are truly timeless! Don't worry about the future. Enjoy today - and feel comfort that you'll enjoy tomorrow even more!

Netrunner was dead for a decade or more and still playable -- then it got picked up again

Oh yes. That game got only one real expansion before getting the axe - but still to this day it is very playable. It is great that FFG released an updated version and that it is a success - but even greater would have been me being able to use my thousands of original Netrunner cards with this new system

I am a bit worried that this new Star Wars game will get dropped prematurely due to a lack of sales (compared to NR f.x.), but not a bit worried that the game will be "unplayable" after it's run. If it stopped now, I would still have alot of fun with the cards we already have. Just like I did with Netrunner.

Lack of sales ? ! WTF. This game is selling great. Certainly better than CoC or Warhammer Invasion and they are still going.

According to the latest Internal Correspondence (ICV2's hobby industry magazine -- you can buy kinda pricey PDFs here), our beloved Star Wars game is #10 on the best-selling dice/card games of Summer 2013. That's down from the Spring numbers, where it was #4, but Netrunner has also dropped from #1 to #3. So yes: Star Wars sells better than any LCG other than Netrunner. Netrunner is a true phenomenon (and also a game that I love and play). By any measure Star Wars is a success, and if it's not enough of a success for FFG after landing on the top 10 list multiple seasons in a row, then they're doing something wrong with the internal costs for this game.

I think the general feeling out there about how Star Wars isn't "doing well enough" (I have felt this in the past) is due to comparing it to Netrunner's blindingly bright sales (and X-Wing's great sales: #2 on the non-collectible miniatures chart, only behind Warhammer 40k*) and not evaluating its sales on their own merits. Star Wars will continue to be around and do well for some time. We just need to get some of those Netrunner players interested so we can have more opponents! I have a hard time finding events and players in my local town, but if I were playing Cthulhu or Warhammer it'd be even tougher (lots of locals seem to play Game of Thrones, even though it sells less well than Star Wars).

I think Balance of the Force has the potential to bring a lot of new people in and give the game some needed buzz. It'll be easy to teach new people by the bucketful since we can play four-player games, and in general I think we'll get some harder looks at the game by Star Wars fans who looked at it originally and passed over it in favor of Netrunner, since the two releases were so close (I personally know multiple people like this).

Plus, a new movie in 2015, etc. Good luck, FFG! We love this game and want it to continue to do well.

*to be sure X-Wing and Star Wars LCG are likely taking sales away from each other. I've heard X-Wing is a great game, but I for one can't imagine caring more about Star Wars' ships than its characters, so the LCG it is for me until Fantasy Flight buys and reprints Epic Duels.