Zev is leaving Z-Man Games!

But of course best wishes to Zev. I cheer you for your success and involvement in developing the hobby.

Zev is an awesome guy.

The overreaction on FFG/Days of Wonder/Asmodee NA is a bit funny.

Those brands will keep their logos and in house design teams. The Dice Tower press release is misleading.

icv2.com/articles/news/view/33314/asmode...s-wonder-consolidate

On the downside, it looks like we'll have Mayfair-style price fixing...

charlest wrote: Zev is an awesome guy.

The overreaction on FFG/Days of Wonder/Asmodee NA is a bit funny.

Those brands will keep their logos and in house design teams. The Dice Tower press release is misleading.

icv2.com/articles/news/view/33314/asmode...s-wonder-consolidate

On the downside, it looks like we'll have Mayfair-style price fixing...

Maybe...maybe not. Seems like whenever I've seen these sorts of merger/buy-outs it's only a matter of time before someone decides it's time to merge all the brands to one. Recall the WotC/TSR deal? They left the TSR logo around for a bit as well before getting rid of it. There's only so long they're gonna want to deal with all these sub-companies under their umbrella.

Maybe I'm wrong though...

So are FFG/DoW implementing the same policy regarding online sales (i.e. none) as GW, or will it be less restrictive? The wording in the article is less than clear.

Disgustipater wrote: So are FFG/DoW implementing the same policy regarding online sales (i.e. none) as GW, or will it be less restrictive? The wording in the article is less than clear.

I don't think they will limit online sales at all (I imagine losing CSI, MM, Cardhaus would hurt their NA sales quite a bit, considering X-Wing is a significant portion of MM's total revenue). I think they will have price floors like Mayfair. So we should see prices rise across the board for FFG/DoW/Asmodee titles.

So they'll be able to sell them, just not at a discount of any significance.

Yuck.

Regarding the name change - My group of close friends, casuals all... they don't know stuff like who the hell Reiner Knizia is, who Zev is, Tom Vasel, etc etc. That goes for Asmodee as well. But they sure as fuck know who FFG is, every one of them. Hell, I don't own a single Asmodee game in my library even though I'm aware of the brand.

Hex Sinister wrote: Yuck.

But they sure as fuck know who FFG is

Yeah, this strikes me as a rather tone deaf decision on the part of Asmodee. Maybe their brand has more traction in Europe, but over here, esp the last few years with all the LCG and Star Wars stuff, FFG is an exponentially more well known brand.

I'm pretty sure the only game I've ever owned with an Asmodee stamp on it is Mall of Horror, and I couldn't name a single other game from their catalogue with much certainty. FFG and DoW, though... I could name pretty much every game in either catalogue. Definitely a tone deaf decision if they do away with that branding.

Off the top of my head I have Claustrophobia, Hotel Tycoon and Mall of Horror.
And they have their hands in a TON of other games.

I think this is a remove-the-band-aid kind of decision. You lose the brand recognition, but you use the game recognition to establish the Asmodee brand name in the US if you move quickly. Likely keeps printing cheaper as well, which appears to be very important in boardgaming.

I somehow avoided making a knee-jerk post about this, I thought it out a bit more.

Effectively they are trying to do what Games Workshop has done successfully- to push the deep discount retailers out, to drive people into stores and into organized play and other in-store. Because I will tell you straight up that NOTHING- no Tom Vasel video, no Radho Rides Again post or whatever- sells a game like actually seeing people playing it and then playing it with them. My philosophy at Atlanta Game Factory was always that I was selling people not only a game, but also a place to play it and people to play it with. This is how I sold something like $10k worth of Confrontation product one summer- simply by painting the miniatures, playing the game, and getting others to play it. By the same turn, this is why so many CCGs fail- because a "CCG hall" culture never grows around them and people won't buy games that they feel like they can't play.

So Mr. Petersen comes out with this statement about supporting FLGS as a "third area" and so forth and effectively promoting retail locations not only as game sellers but also as _marketers_. Wizards of the Coast also does this exact same thing with Magic. It is smart business to an extent, but there is also the fact that this whole "online sales prohibited (which really just means limited to high volume OLGS)" is just so massively, completely tone deaf as to the state of the FLGS today. Games are NOT doing as well as they are as a category because of in-store play. They are doing so well because you can go online and order $100 retail worth of games for $70 and have them at your doorstep in three days. And because they have slightly become more mainstream, more removed from the "game store" culture. What this whole deal does, from where I see it, is to put games back into those dingy, dank game shops. Not all games, just those under this new aegis.

They are also going to employ, it sounds like, what is called "net pricing". This is an old practice that a lot of publishers use to prevent deep discounts and to preserve retail price integrity. When I ordered Days of Wonder product, it was always net priced which made it VERY difficult for me to offer the games at my standard 30% off. The margin was just way, way too late. But it was a flat price paid by all retailers, it wasn't subject to terms or discounts through Alliance, Blackhawk, ACD, etc. It is not "price fixing" as the BGG idiots would try to tell you, it's simply a protection in place so that B&M retailers do not find themselves with $60 retail products that are not saleable at $60.

What I think we will see happen is that Asmodee will effectively shut out the smaller retailers online (Games Surplus, Cardhaus, those kinds of shops) but will still offer their titles to MM, CSI and maybe Funagain with the stipulation that prices be set at retail.

BUT HANG ON A MINUTE. Here's my whole point about all of this. WHY THE FUCK would two major companies- both of whom have many top-selling brands, licenses, and perennially successful titles and both of whom have BENEFITTED tremendously from online discounting- essentially stake their ground in a business model that has been FAILING for over a decade at this point? I remember reading a thing in Comic & Games Shop News back in 2006 that stated that between 2004 and 2006, OVER HALF of the hobby game shops in the US closed down. It isn't an antiquated model, but it is one that has downscaled (or "right sized") itself. It makes zero sense for these companies to stake it out AGAINST the online sellers that have taken them to the level they have and then try to play this "yay, FLGS" card.

It's like they are trying to help a hobo get back on his feet or something.

The thing is, ten years ago or twelve years ago this would almost have made sense. But neither of these companies was doing the kind of volume they do now. And even online stores weren't doing the kind of volume they do now. The whole thing looks/feels/sounds like moneyed, out-of-touch suits with their heads up their asses. Did Mr. Petersen walk out into the Event Center and think "it must be like this at The Game Hut in Poughkeepsie too".

And it ESPECIALLY doesn't make sense in the wake of the Kickstarter explosion. People are not buying those games at "specialty retailers that foster connections" or whatever.

And for my part, I have not set foot in a game store in...I don't even remember the last time I did. I suspect a lot of FFG fans and customers are the same.

Yes it does seem out of touch considering I think this is just more of a reason to send your money to Kickstarter.

I wonder if they think that their consolidated brand is so big now that the online stores will still carry their stock, regardless of the enforced price floor. With Mayfair, we've seen stuff like Starlight Citadel refuse to sign their agreement and just not stock their titles. You can't do that with FFG/Asmodee/DoW without cutting out half of your product. What I think this really means is higher margins for Asmodee, increased returns for shareholders.

I think they're doubling down on people willing to pay a high amount for the Star Wars brand and other titles.

Even I would agree that it makes for a good argument in support of the Kickstarter model.

It is definitely a higher margin play, I think. And it does put the online stores in something of a bind because they will inevitably be looking at lower margins on their end and most likely that enforced price floor. Of course, if an X-Wing ship is $14.95 everywhere, it isn't a big deal to the consumer. But to the retailer that was selling these for $9.95 and they are now sourcing them for $8-9...that's a big deal for them.

There is definitely a whiff of that old FFG hubris about it all too...that people will just pay whatever because of their brands and licenses. But there definitely is leverage there, you've got companies like MM and CSI that depend on FFG/DoW titles to make up for selling at a discount with volume.

Heh, I was just thinking...they are basically saying "we are going to promote a business model that on some nights makes more profit selling chips and cokes than they do selling board games".

charlest wrote: What I think this really means is higher margins for Asmodee, increased returns for shareholders.

I'm not sure that's true. I don't think this lifts Asmodee's wholesale prices, and may increase shipping costs. How does the publisher make more money? They can lift their price anytime they want, online stores or not.

What it does is get loyalty from boutique game stores that I think give them leverage in marketing. But, the cost of each game is higher, suppressing sales counts.

Barnes wrote: "we are going to promote a business model that on some nights makes more profit selling chips and cokes than they do selling board games".

Or whiskey or coffee. To some extent they're empowering their retailers to use the product as a giveaway, a gimme to get sales on high-return consumable products.

I don't see how this works in their favor for games that aren't "event" oriented. Fewer retailers would seem to be to their advantage in my opinion. A single retailer sounds best, a model that most video game publishers are in the process of moving to right now.