http://fortressat.com/ Sat, 18 May 2013 01:26:21 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=828#josc80691 [quote=Michael Barnes]Compelling evidence for Sag's argument- all those TREMENDOUSLY expensive wargames like FIRE IN THE SKY, DEVIL'S CALUDRON, CODE BLUE, WACHT AM RHEIN et. al. almost _never_ get bad reviews. They almost always get extremely positive reviews without fail. And these are $150-$200 games.[/quote] These are quite different games though, they are wargamer hobbyist games that simulate history to a greater or lesser extent. The only real review that could be made regarding these games is logical inconsistencies in the rules and historical accuracy. Most well researched wargames like Case Blue etc are for history buffs which is a slightly different subset from normal gamers. More like miniature table top gamers. You wouldn't really think of reviewing miniature rules to the extent that you would review a boardgame. Either the rules are a good simulation of the battle or they are not. Everyone knows what they are getting with these type of wargames but not so with, say, Empire of the Void etc etc ThirstyMan Sun, 08 Jul 2012 15:30:02 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=828#josc80688 Excellent article. While I agree with Ken on one thing: this was a bad example of a game to pick on since it's licensed and has a higher base cost (likely), you could say the exact same thing about a hundred games. There may well be some of this in the market where people price their game higher than one would expect for audience reasons. Didn't work out well for, say, Mansions of Madness, though! SuperflyTNT Sun, 08 Jul 2012 12:27:00 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=828#josc7637 I played both editions now - the Hasbro and FFG one. The FFG edition has some more rules and IIRC about double the number of races. Game play is essentially the same in both edition, the new cards don't alter it that much. The components are better in the Hasbro edition. Especially the space ships carrying units supporting the defender were functional. If you're going to play this game only casually, I'd recommend the Hasbro edition. For more dedicated gamers the FFG edition is probably better, simply because the added stuff adds to the replayability. But I don't think it's worth the price difference - $30 at minimum. If you're going to buy the FFG edition and see the Hasbro edition on clearance somewhere, I would buy it, too, just to meddle in the better components. Schweig! Thu, 18 Dec 2008 08:36:17 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=828#josc7618 [i]"Compelling evidence for Sag's argument- all those TREMENDOUSLY expensive wargames like FIRE IN THE SKY, DEVIL'S CALUDRON, CODE BLUE, WACHT AM RHEIN et. al. almost _never_ get bad reviews. They almost always get extremely positive reviews without fail. And these are $150-$200 games."[/i] I agree with this, but you're probably mistaking FIRE IN THE SKY for some other game. Who would bitch about his brand new Lamborghini? [i]"The Hasbro edition is just a little too vanilla, and FFG releasing a similar base set would have been a profoundly stupid idea. They added stuff, and especially extra alien powers--because that is the fun part."[/i] I'll have to check the new edition out, to see if it's worth the extra $55. Schweig! Tue, 16 Dec 2008 15:54:21 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=828#josc7613 No. [i]I'm[/i] not worried about it. I've played it before. I just have a group that tends to wilt when genuine competition is in the offing and it requires a little stratergeny, rather than just taking advantage of whatever turns up (which I guess you can do with CE, too, now that Flares are back...) Jackwraith Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:45:59 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=828#josc7610 Yep...if you take CE seriously then you've already lost the game. Michael Barnes Mon, 15 Dec 2008 18:37:03 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=828#josc7609 [quote]We play a lot of AT-style games and only a few Euros/abstracts (Ra, Go, etc.) but I get the feeling that CE will cross the line toward actually having to seriously think about a strategy that will alienate (heh) a number of them. I hope I'm wrong.[/quote] Wait - you're worried CE will be too [i]serious[/i]? I wouldn't worry about that. It's pretty goofy and loose. dragonstout Mon, 15 Dec 2008 18:33:42 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=828#josc7606 For some reason I thought FFG game prices were determined by box size. So either CE can fit into a Silver Line size box or it gets the square box and appropriate pricing for the square box. If anything I'm guessing there's a marketing reason for that standard pricing. Mad Dog Mon, 15 Dec 2008 14:34:35 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=828#josc7605 Sigh... I wish I could be so certain. I know that [i]I'll[/i] love it and to play four or five games in a row over beer and whatever's edible within reach. But I'm not so certain about the rest of my group. We play a lot of AT-style games and only a few Euros/abstracts (Ra, Go, etc.) but I get the feeling that CE will cross the line toward actually having to seriously think about a strategy that will alienate (heh) a number of them. I hope I'm wrong. Jackwraith Mon, 15 Dec 2008 14:19:36 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=828#josc7604 [quote]And there's been a couple of other games I've bought recently that I immediately desperately tried to sell as soon as we cleared it from the table. One of those sparked a reverse bidding war as there were two copies present, and we both started to try and lower our prices to match the lone potential bidder. [/quote] What the hell were these? And I've gotta say that I don't really get the people who say that Cosmic Encounter is so overpriced. Maybe component-wise, but most games are overpriced if you just think how much the cardboard and plastic and art cost. You're paying for the downright guarantee of it being a lot of fun and you're paying for the great design; this is probably the most sure-thing $60 I've spent all year. dragonstout Mon, 15 Dec 2008 13:59:08 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=828#josc7603 [i]And there's been a couple of other games I've bought recently that I immediately desperately tried to sell as soon as we cleared it from the table. One of those sparked a reverse bidding war as there were two copies present, and we both started to try and lower our prices to match the lone potential bidder. [/i] But I had the upper hand. I leveraged the fact that the potential bidder had spilled beer on my copy to seal the deal. Michael Barnes Mon, 15 Dec 2008 12:40:45 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=828#josc7602 Schweig! The Hasbro edition doesn't make a good price comparison. The content of the FFG edition more closely resembles the Mayfair edition which was dragging in $125-$150. The Hasbro edition is just a little too vanilla, and FFG releasing a similar base set would have been a profoundly stupid idea. They added stuff, and especially extra alien powers--because that is the fun part. I do buy a lot of games, and don't feel the attraction towards an expensive bought game. There is a recent game called Bushido that is mostly an unorganized pile of crap with some interesting bits stuck in it. And there's been a couple of other games I've bought recently that I immediately desperately tried to sell as soon as we cleared it from the table. One of those sparked a reverse bidding war as there were two copies present, and we both started to try and lower our prices to match the lone potential bidder. Problem is writing a review of some of those games just seems like a tedious idea. Many words to just avoid something I'd rather just get behind me. moofrank Mon, 15 Dec 2008 12:35:20 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=828#josc7601 Compelling evidence for Sag's argument- all those TREMENDOUSLY expensive wargames like FIRE IN THE SKY, DEVIL'S CALUDRON, CODE BLUE, WACHT AM RHEIN et. al. almost _never_ get bad reviews. They almost always get extremely positive reviews without fail. And these are $150-$200 games. Michael Barnes Mon, 15 Dec 2008 09:57:58 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=828#josc7600 Cosmic Encounter is a much better value than 20 new comics from DC or Marvel. Or maybe just 15 comics, if the price hike rumors are accurate. Shellhead Mon, 15 Dec 2008 09:12:19 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=828#josc7599 $60 is a HIGH price for a game, which earlier edition by Hasbro sold for $5 recently. Schweig! Mon, 15 Dec 2008 07:22:49 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=828#josc7598 With regard this argument, don't forget that "elite games" from certain publishers and/or designers are almost guaranteed blanket positive coverage on the most widely-read internet boardgaming channel. That makes it all the more important for publishers such as FFG to do whatever they can to get positive publicity at BGG. This is also the reason as to why I think it rather unfortunate that BGG continues to be the most widely-read outlet for our hobby. That said, it's not like things aren't exactly the opposite way around here! I don't recall any of us giving an FFG game much of a hard time recently :) But I like to think we probably would if we found one we didn't like. [i]That[/i] said I'm not entirely convinced there's much to this argument other than "whatever the market will bear". CE is an in-demand game with a proud history. People want to own and play it. They'll pay the price. It's also worth remembering that given that proud history, FFG probably had to pay top dollar to secure the reprint rights, and part of that cost will be passed on to you, the consumer, in the price of the game. MattDP Mon, 15 Dec 2008 04:45:13 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=828#josc7597 I think the elasticity is pretty low at the moment. Boardgames are a luxury item for which 'replacement' is defined by 'something other'. If you want to play Pandemic, you want to play Pandemic. Passing it up for something else is not the same as finding a lower cost TV. You either buy at the set price or you don't. As some may have seen CLS Games trying to generate elasticity by charging 80% more for Pandemic when copies were scarce; I didn't buy then and paid the regular price by waiting for a couple months. I didn't spend elsewhere. I waited for Pandemic. By the same token, I don't think FFG is pursuing a particularly new strategy here in charging $60 for CE. They know the game has an in-built audience (as opposed to hoping for a 'hit' with, say, Android) and they know that FFG itself also has a certain degree of following (again, the hopes for Android based on knowledge of FFG's quality, a huge marketing effort at their website and through retailers (I've had two different store owners mention the game to me), and awareness of Kevin Wilson's reputation from Descent and Arkham Horror), so they feel able to charge that much and know that the sales will follow. The approbation from having the closest version to Eon's for the first time in a couple decades will, in turn, generate more sales. The same phenomenon will occur if they ever manage to get the Dune license from the Herbert estate to add to the game rules they got from Avalon Hill. I think it's more emblematic of FFG's awareness of its audience that they're willing to slap a price tag that high on it, as opposed to them playing the reviewers to lure people past it. Jackwraith Sun, 14 Dec 2008 21:52:42 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=828#josc7596 I'm curious as to how elastic the boardgame market is. And how different that elasticity is for publishers like FFG vs. GMT vs. other, smaller niche publishers. Anybody know? Bullwinkle Sun, 14 Dec 2008 10:18:20 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=828#josc7595 I really struggled with the exposition on this one and it still isn't fully cooked in my mind (likely apparent to the reader.) A large part of my job is managing risk and when I look into an industry such as this where you're starting with a new product from scratch on a regular basis I see all sorts of unpredictability that needs to be managed, particularly in customer expectations. Frankly, the heart of my thinking on the subject has been more geared towards the effects that the exceptionally narrow window of communication that currently exists between us gamers that favor the more exotic flavors. Two or three web sites are likely providing 98% of the reading hours to the community and one of those probably accounts for the bulk of that. The game publishers have very little voice in these venues and they need to take care when using what voice they have. Given that environment, the babble above is about how one might choose to have some level of control over it. Product price is fundamentally about perceived value and what the market will bear. Sometimes that bearable price is lower than production cost -- the product is not made. Sometimes it is on the edge, and sometimes it's higher. But when it's higher, the producer has options that, either consciously or no, he chooses to exercise. In the case where he chooses to increase price and take the associated hit on market penetration, it presents him with the ability to manage the value of the product and the people that will be in a position to judge it. That who message pipe issue is still more than a bit half-baked in my mind right now. Sag. Sagrilarus Sun, 14 Dec 2008 09:28:40 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=828#josc7594 Also regarding reviews... BGN receives a lot of free games from small publishers. For some reason they feel compelled to review them. They are panned 90% of the time, often sarcastically. And yet the flow goes on and on... If I was a small publisher, the last thing I would do would be to send a complimentary game to BGN, but hey, bad publicity is still publicity I guess... vialiy Sun, 14 Dec 2008 04:19:38 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=828#josc7592 There's no conspiracy--FFG is selling it for exactly as much as they figure they can, and cover the fees of production AND the licensing fees of the original game. I've seen a lot of comments about free games getting softer reviews. I find myself in the opposite boat. If I buy a game, I'm likely to enjoy it. Naturally, there are plenty of times where I think I'll like something but am disappointed (Tomb, Tannhauser) but since I tend to buy what I'll probably like, my reviews for stuff I buy is likely to be "nicer." Send a review copy and it will be of something that I wasn't inclined to buy immediately. That means by definition I'm likely to give it a worse review. There's an off chance that a company could price something high enough that it could make sure it only gets reviews from those "interested" parties...but they're also setting themselves up for worse reviews if people buy in at the higher price point but end up disappointed for one reason or another. So...the price you see is what FFG honestly feels like they need to sell it for, to turn a profit and cover their costs. I'm pretty sure that's as far as it goes in this instance. Ken B. Sun, 14 Dec 2008 01:22:33 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=828#josc7591 If elite game companies sell at a high price to avoid backlash at the "unified channel", it's an epic failure :). I think they sell that high because they figured that the higher profits from the obsessive base that will buy everything will more than offset the loss from people that would have bought it at a lower price but not at this price. I don't know about print runs at FFG, but a lower run would fit that theory. Of course, higher prices might also be easily explained by higher production costs somewhere in these wacky economic indicators... vialiy Sat, 13 Dec 2008 23:26:16 +0100