"A Guide to Westros"

I dunno folks - when I saw FFG purchase Battlebore the first thing I thought was that they would bury it in order to print up their own knock-off and not worry about any competition. Seems like that's what's happening here.

The game announcement went off like a lead balloon for me but I think this had more to do with expectations. it could be a great system with limitless possibilities. Given the FFG base release, expansion, another expansion model it might be alright. Maybe not my cup of tea but that's beside the point.

As for the price tag issue...I have never seen so much whining about prices as I do amongst the board game crowd. This creeps up with every game release. I don't buy the bullshit about the online vendors either. Factor in the shipping and what are you saving? Who doesn't enjoy getting out of the house and browsing at the game store? I think the problem is really for people that buy more games than they can play and spend way too much time at the FLGS NOT buying things. Is it really necessary to buy everything? Stick to 2-3 games a year and you won't be so disappointed with the cost. Everything costs money and bitching about game prices is just stupid - don't buy it if you don't think it's worth the price. We’re talking about $10-$20 for Christ sakes and I am assuming this isn’t your weekly allowance amount – which would be understandable if a 12 year old were complaining so much.

I’ll pick up the box – look it over, look at the price and make a decision that will take a few minutes to myself and move on. Is it worth it to me, yes or no. Who gives a fuck about industry think tanks and Chinese labor costs.

I tend to agree with Skeletor and Pat. I would rather have a couple of games a year that are awesomely designed and produced (whether that be plastic or cardboard, sometimes the cardboard would be nicer just because of storage and transporting issues) and pay a premium price for them.

If the rise from $80 to $100 is breaking the bank, then you shouldn't likely be spending money on boardgames to begin with -- you are either buying too many, as Pat said, or you truly have better things to be spending your money on. If you can think of a better way to spend your $100, then by all means, do so. The incessant bitching about prices is exhausting.

For that argument to work, you're assuming that what the company is selling you is FUN. Fun is not included among the component lists, nor is fun part of the manufacturing costs.

Note to marketers: Include "FUN" on components list

Includes
128 minis!
54 action cards!
23 alignment cards!
Status markers and order tokens!
FUN!
Customizable hex board!

You're all just sad that this game is going to be good and successful.

That's why you come up with excuses such as "too expensive", "made in China", "only buy 3 games a year", "the poor Battlelore fans" and "GRRM sucks".

I dunno guys, I have to say that I think it's kind of a bad position when casting a critical eye toward why games cost so much these days and what we're getting for our money is written off as "bitching". And I'm not feeling this "I'll pay whatever price they ask for what I want" attitude at all. I think you guys are giving the people setting prices for what we do for fun WAY too much power over our money.

If I were Christian Petersen, I'd keep running prices up as far as possible until the company started seeing declining sales. Then I'd back it off just enough, keeping things right at the maximum point the fans will pay. Why not, price what the market will bear, right? If people are saying "charge me all you can, I want your premium product", why _wouldn't_ you do that in capitalist enterprise?

But what is that breaking point for you? When games are $200? Or are you REALLY willing to pay $200 or more for a board game, regardless of how many you purchase in a year? How about one that used to cost $50, $80, $100 but is now retailing at two or three times what it was less than a decade ago? I mean, this is a _premium_ item we're talking about...

But whatever man, I'll quit bitching.

$80 is easily my breaking point. I just can't justify spending more than that for a boardgame. And I won't. I have spent more than that for games like 40K and MtG, etc. But I was also a dumbass in those days, and didn't have any real concept of money and consequences of spending. But I got better.

If all boardgames start exceeding that amount, I'll just have to play the games I already own and enjoy, and leave all these fancy newfangled games to those who would spend over that amount.

I remember when bread cost $.50 and now it's like $3.50.

I should mention that my copy of Runewars will cost me $60 CAD all in delivered right to my hands. If was unable to get that rate I probably wouldn't buy it.

I will probably pay the $100 price tag for Whorus Hershey though. I am also not below stealing a copy if the opportunity presents itself. I just won't complain about the price of ANYTHING I can't afford or don't otherwise see as a value for my dollars.

If any game's price is $200 it had better appeal to me or I won't buy it and move on to another hobby.

Funny thing is that runewars retails at precisely the same as TI3 did - in Denmark that is. So maybe this is not just about. FFG squeezing the lemond, but as much about your cheap dollars.

And I don't get all the bitching about expansions. You don't hear all this shit when blizzard made you buy brood war separately, but with board games it's suddenly a major offense. I don't know about you guys, but for me a lot of the expandable games from FFG are perfectly good games in their own right. And yes, that includes TI3 sans expansion.

The only game I bought this year was Successors for 50 quid. Would I have bought it if it cost 75? No, I wouldn't have.

I can find merit in criticising a company for profiteering, lack of quality or the production process. In the end, though, it only matters whether you buy the product or not. And I can see a strange double morale here. Nobody bitches about the price of TI3 or Space Hulk, because they're apparently great games. So once one of us has actually played Battle of Westeros and deemed it awesome, is $80 a valid price point all of a sudden? If the answer is yes, then a debate about the price is worthless.

I bet by the end of the year Barnes will have offered his C&C:A package up for trade to get Battles of Westeros.

I remember when bread cost $.50 and now it's like $3.50.

But you're talking about FOOD. You're also talking about something that's made in much, much higher quantities than board games and something that is almost always manufactured in its country of sale. The point about inflation is taken, but the rest is irrelevant here.

I should mention that my copy of Runewars will cost me $60 CAD all in delivered right to my hands. If was unable to get that rate I probably wouldn't buy it.

So, what you're saying effectively is that the price FFG has set for this product is too high and that you would not buy it without a signficant discount.

Do most people think that? If so, then that just validates my point that higher retail is _enabled_ by deep discounters. Do you think FFG isn't aware that they can price a game at $100 and the street price is likely to be 30-35% less than that? But they still charge a wholesale price to distributors and retailers based on that $100 price point, regardless of how much you paid for it.

Funny thing is that runewars retails at precisely the same as TI3 did - in Denmark that is. So maybe this is not just about. FFG squeezing the lemond, but as much about your cheap dollars.

This is a good point, and one that I made earlier about the weak dollar. We've heard for years that you guys outside the US were paying more for the same games. And there's definitely a factor of "catch up" there.

And I don't get all the bitching about expansions. You don't hear all this shit when blizzard made you buy brood war separately, but with board games it's suddenly a major offense.

This is off on a tangent, but the STARCRAFT comparison is interestingly enough, outdated. Video games have changed their expansion model. Almost any supplmental or additional material is DLC now, and in much smaller portions. They just released a BORDERLANDS expansion that you can buy for ten bucks that adds TONS of new content and expands the game quite a bit. Years ago, you would have bought another retail box with media and associated production costs...and it would have been $30. Board games don't have that luxury.

Expansions are good- I've written a lot about how I like them. The issue with BATTLES OF WESTEROS and other "core set" games is that you're buying into an incremental purchase. "Core set" or "base game" almost always means that you're getting enough to play the game but not the whole thing- not _really_. Sure, you may be satisfied with it without the additional races, factions, or whatever but the idea is that you get on the mill for it.

I think those kinds of expansions are very different than something like the TALISMAN or ARKHAM HORROR ones that enhance- rahter than complete- the base game.

And I can see a strange double morale here. Nobody bitches about the price of TI3 or Space Hulk, because they're apparently great games. So once one of us has actually played Battle of Westeros and deemed it awesome, is $80 a valid price point all of a sudden? If the answer is yes, then a debate about the price is worthless.

I agree completely- what we should be looking at there though is _if the game is priced comparably to other similar games and if we are getting the correct amount and quality of product given its price off the shelf_. The key here is that it's easy to say TI3 is worth $100 after six years of playing it. It's not so easy to say that RUNEWARS is worth $100 because no one may be interested in playing it a year from now. That gets into that area I'm talking about where monetary valuation doesn't have anything to do with personal valuation.

I bet by the end of the year Barnes will have offered his C&C:A package up for trade to get Battles of Westeros.

I seriously doubt it- I haven't played the C&C:A stuff I have in like two years, if anything it's been in jeopardy of being sold on Ebay since it's gathering dust. I like it and all, but every time I go to cull that's on the tentative list. I don't really need anything to replace it, I rarely get a chance to play two player games as it is and when I do it tends to be one of a couple of wargames or something like SPACE HULK or NETRUNNER.

Michael Barnes wrote:

I dunno guys, I have to say that I think it's kind of a bad position when casting a critical eye toward why games cost so much these days and what we're getting for our money is written off as "bitching". And I'm not feeling this "I'll pay whatever price they ask for what I want" attitude at all. I think you guys are giving the people setting prices for what we do for fun WAY too much power over our money.

If I were Christian Petersen, I'd keep running prices up as far as possible until the company started seeing declining sales. Then I'd back it off just enough, keeping things right at the maximum point the fans will pay. Why not, price what the market will bear, right? If people are saying "charge me all you can, I want your premium product", why _wouldn't_ you do that in capitalist enterprise?

Exactly, that is what I would do too because that is just smart business. There is a trade-off between volume and sales. Finding the optimum amount is the key.

But what is that breaking point for you? When games are $200? Or are you REALLY willing to pay $200 or more for a board game, regardless of how many you purchase in a year? How about one that used to cost $50, $80, $100 but is now retailing at two or three times what it was less than a decade ago? I mean, this is a _premium_ item we're talking about...

But whatever man, I'll quit bitching.

Well, that is the point, right. I would say $80 is about the top limit for me unless it is something I am really coveting. To me, boardgames are easily as fun as video games. New video games cost $60 bucks, so it seems about "on par" for enjoyability. Perhaps the $100 price point is about as high as they can push it for now. Obviously they are unwilling to go to the $150 price point for BattleLore.

I guess that I don't see what the point of this discussion is about. There was a brief interlude about the purchasing decisions and the environment -- which is likely worth exploring further and was interesting. The discussion about cost just seems silly to me. It is like complaining about not being able to afford a Lexus. If you think it is worth it and want one, then buy one. If not, then don't.

Obviously, the market can bear the $100 for these more "epic" (Runewars), "collector" (Space Hulk), or "rare" (Greed, Inc.). If that is the price that maximizes their profits, why should they sell it for less? Obviously, it is worth it to enough people to keep on buying. If enough people feel otherwise, then the price will go down.

So, I guess, I can we get a clarified and well-defined point about the purpose discussing the prices?

Michael Barnes wrote:

So, what you're saying effectively is that the price FFG has set for this product is too high and that you would not buy it without a signficant discount.

Do most people think that? If so, then that just validates my point that higher retail is _enabled_ by deep discounters. Do you think FFG isn't aware that they can price a game at $100 and the street price is likely to be 30-35% less than that? But they still charge a wholesale price to distributors and retailers based on that $100 price point, regardless of how much you paid for it.

I don't understand the logic of this argument at all. How does this affect the price to you, as the consumer, at all. If you are only willing to pay $80, then you won't buy it if you can't get it from an online store. If you are willing to pay the full $100, then you will buy it from wherever.

The only people this hurts really is the FLGS because it funnels business to the online retail store. Which makes sense because it is maximizing efficiency out of the distribution line, getting the product to you as cheaply as possible. The retail price is irrelevant. Hell, they could say it retails for $200 but you will be able to find it 60% off at most places -- that doesn't change the end game at all.

mjl1783 wrote:

Give me Acquire with large plastic tiles, 2x-sized Dune board, and wooden Civilization pieces (all of which I've paid extra for) over all the cardboard chit versions of those games, which are not only uglier, but less functional (I have a hard time imagining Dune on that tiny board included in the box, or Civ with all those chits that blend into the board).

Strawman. "Cardboard components" does not mean "1790s-level production value," and you know it. You could do an all-cardboard Dune reprint with easy-to-manage components and not have it cost you and arm and a leg. Besides, I've played the game on that "tiny" board. I guarantee it's the same damn game you're playing.

Sure, same game, but are you telling me you wouldn't prefer to pay more for a more practically sized Dune board with less flimsy pieces? You'd prefer a cheaper but all-cardboard Dune? That's where I not only completely disagree, but also completely don't understand that attitude.

Sure, same game, but are you telling me you wouldn't prefer to pay more for a more practically sized Dune board with less flimsy pieces? You'd prefer a cheaper but all-cardboard Dune? That's where I not only completely disagree, but also completely don't understand that attitude.

Oh, I'd love to play DUNE on a solid gold board with precious gem pieces and drink fuckin' Cristal the whole time...but you know what?

I'D STILL BE PLAYING DUNE!

My beat the fuck up copy, filled with flimsy pieces and with a D4 to replace the missing storm token and three of the Harkonnen units represented by squares of black construction paper has served me just fine, and before that it served someone else just fine for 20 years.

I love great production, don't get me wrong. Good production, great artwork, all that stuff that nobody but Juniper and I care about like logotype...I want it all. But realistically, all of that stuff costs a lot of money, and when the best games are all $60+, it starts to get into a situation where that kind of production could be (not "is", I'm just speaking in theoretical terms) crippling the hobby. Not only that, but if FFG has to maintain the "TI3 Standard" on every release, then the likelihood of them producing any kind of really maverick, innovative designs goes down dramatically. ANDROID was a fluke, and we've discussed how it could have happened at length already.

I was _never_ one of those "all games must include plastic pieces" people. I like them, they're fun, but come on...COSMIC ENCOUNTER does the same thing with or without those plastic jacks and goofy attack boats. If you can't have the exact same fun with the EON edition with the tiny discs and godawful artwork...I don't know what to tell you.

Now, I do think that big production is VERY important to cracking mainstream wallets. But when the product is priced where any reasonable outsider is going to balk, then you've accomplished nothing. A WORLD OF WARCRAFT game at Target for $39.95 is attractive. A WORLD OF WARCRAFT game that's $100 at Target is impossible. Sorry, but most people outside of the hobby can't be convinced that a box full of cheap plastic army men and cardboard tokens is worth $100. No matter how you frame it.

I don't understand the logic of this argument at all. How does this affect the price to you, as the consumer, at all. If you are only willing to pay $80, then you won't buy it if you can't get it from an online store. If you are willing to pay the full $100, then you will buy it from wherever.

Because the lower street price, which is undoubtedly assumed by FFG and other retailers in their projections, makes putting a $100 game on shelves more viable. If online discounters didn't exist and we all had to pay full retail for games, I'd bet you that games over $50 would be very, very rare. Because there wouldn't be as much of a market for them.

Think about it...out of all of your gaming friends, do they ALL own copies of the "whales"? Or does one or two people own DESCENT, one or two people own TI3, and so on? Not everybody buys this stuff, and a big reason is because of price. Why the FUCK would I pay $100 for a game that four other people- all of whom I play games with- also bought for a hundred bucks? It makes no sense.

If you're going to attack my position on all this, let me give you a tactical hint- I haven't bought a board game since October of 2008. I've purchased a couple of expansions- FROSTMARCH and INNSMOUTH- but that's _it_. I'm fortunate enough to be in a position where price doesn't really affect me. But if you're where one spending $75-$100 for a board game isn't a substantial purchase or one where you've got to really consider the expense...I envy you.

So, I guess, I can we get a clarified and well-defined point about the purpose discussing the prices?

For my part, it's because of the claim Mr. Petersen made that "BATTLORE would be a $150 (or was it $200) game if published today", despite the fact that FFG routinely releases games with similar component quality and quantity for less, coupled with the fact that this is a "core set" release which implies extended purchases. It doesn't help that we were talking a lot about RUNEWARS being $100 last week, so I'm kind of on the warpath about it.