This game looks to be really really cool. We have a dearth of interesting scifi games; and this seems to be fun, playable and well-themed.

Just one concern - the game looks to be 90 cards in size and the proposed cost is $35. Maybe its just me, but this does seem a little overpriced - should it not be more like $25?

There are 90 DIFFERENT cards, but I'm pretty sure there are a lot more actual cards than that, as there are duplicates. Tom will be along presently to correct me if I am mistaken.

The base game has ~150 cards. For the game, there are 90 different cards (as Dan points out), something like 115-120 cards. Then each player gets their 7 'action' cards (these aren't shuffled, but are held and selected to show which role you've got). There are 4 more cards for the alternate two player game (I think).

A deck of 50 custom cards is about $10 retail, so three decks gets you to $30, then you need a bit for the box.

But the real value question is "Will you play it?" I can't answer that, but I'm going to play it to death ... so much that I'm debating between card protectors or just getting a spare set.

Wait till you see the cards. Rio Grande commissioned custom art for each card. Even if you decide you aren't wowed by it, you'll have to admit that a great deal of effort went into it.

There are 150 cards, two reference sheets, and VP chips in the base game. The box is on the big side, as we want it large enough to also hold the two expansions (which have more than just more cards in them).

Value for money is not only the question it is the answer here.

Race for the Galzxy is a well tested, fun and quick playing game with or without the custom art. For the last two years at the Gathering there were all night sessions of this pretty much every night with proto type cards with no art! People were playing it over and over and over . . . including me! Its a very nice combination of quick and easy to play but challenging and interesting at the same time.

If you are doubtful, wait to play it first and then decide. For me, if its a game I play a lot then the money is a small issue. As many have stated here on the BGG, compare a night gaming with a night out doing something else and I think you will agree, the price of a game is cheap!

For my money this game is a no brainer - but then I've played it and know that I like what I am getting. If its a concern for you, by all means try before you buy!

I think the question on value for money is to do with what you value. I have over 500 games and I certainly haven't had value out of all of them. Where I have had good value it's been for all sorts of reasons:-

- Played a lot so cost per session is small.
- Had to translate rules (even when in English!)and work out how to play.
- Produced player aids or redesigned components
- Gained GeekGold and lots of BGG interaction for rules, player aids etc.
- Game is hot on BGG so good to be involved in discussions.
- Wonderful components so just nice to have.
- Interesting theme so spent time researching and reading up.
- Game offers itself to variants so again time working out and discussing on BGG.
- Game has had educational value for family members
- Bits were useful in other games
- Game worked as a gateway game for friend or family member.
- Rare or part of a set etc.(the collector motive)

Any of these or a combination can mean that I feel I've had value for money as I've spent interesting leisure time on the game or some aspect of it.

As for RftG, I think it'll justify itself on my first point above. (And it's by Tom Lehmann! )

Chris

Some people simply don't want to be overcharged, they have an idea of what a game "should" cost, based on its components, and they don't want to pay more than that even if they would get value from it. I think there is a certain logic to this as otherwise it may be too easy for the vendor to capture what should be the consumer surplus.

From what I understand, the price of RFTG seems reasonable for the components.

I agree none of us wants to be overcharged. I would just go a bit further than just valuing a game "based on it's components".

Is it? Yes, I am judging the book by its cover. Perhaps I have in mind a similar game like San Juan, which goes for about $15 (online). As I said - the theme and nature of the game really appeal (as a sci-fi fan there are far too few good games) and I am sure I will get good replay value from it - I just have to swallow quite hard to justify the upfront cost to myself.

Well, it would help to compare apples to apples. The retail price for San Juan is $25; Race is $35. Applying a similar percentage discount to Race as one that drives San Juan to $15, Race would sell online for $21.

San Juan also has 40 fewer cards.

-MMM

I might add that every product you buy sells for more than the cost of production---or at least, it should sell for more than the cost of production if the seller is trying to make a profit. The reason you're willing to pay more than cost is that the seller has added value through good design or efficient manufacturing, so that the value to you is more than the cost of production. In a rational market, the selling price will be more than the cost of production, but less than the value to the buyer. The key to business success is finding a way to make the value to the buyer higher than the cost of production, and then getting the buyer to buy your product at a price somewhere in between.

In this particular case, Tom Lehmann has spent years refining this game and seeking a way to bring it to market. You can't make a judgment about the price unless you consider the value of Tom's time, effort and creativity.

I think this is usually pretty well captured by volume of sales. Better-designed games sell more copies, and that's the primary way that they make more money for the designer, as opposed to charging a higher markup for each copy. The only time I'd expect to pay a higher "design markup" is for a niche game that, despite requiring a lot of design effort, is not likely to sell in large quantities (but for which I'm squarely in the target market).

Publishers can charge whatever they want for their games, but I think imposing a larger markup because the game is well-designed is likely to be counterproductive. They should aim to sell more copies, instead.

They should set a price that will maximize their profit. Price should have little to do with cost of materials except to the extent that customers base their purchasing decision off what they view is reasonable and it is a useful starting point for the business folk to determine how much profit should attempt to be gleaned.

I think that years of development, the risk of never getting published, small scale print runs, etc. are all factors that support small publishers charging what would otherwise seem to be a high price (at least in proportion to component cost). I view it like the drug companies, yeah they charge a lot, but most drugs never make it through all the hoops so there are a lot of hidden costs.

Anyway, I don't mind paying a few bucks more to support these guys and motivate other creative types with more entrepreneurial guts than me to give it a shot with some new game that would otherwise never see the light of day.

Cost of materials has a whole lot to do with the profit-maximizing price, because if you set a price below cost, you aren't going to have any profit, and if you set a price well above cost, the decrease in sales outweighs the extra profit per unit. So the profit-maximizing price for boardgames seems to nearly always be cost of production plus a relatively small profit.

One could imagine a unique boardgame that's in such intense demand that the maker could charge several times their cost, and still sell millions of copies. But it seems pretty unlikely. In most ordinary cases, the volume of sales declines quite sharply with price.

Actually, price/profit curves can do some counterintuitive things, because perceived value to the consumer is based on both rational and irrational factors. For example, many consumers will buy the second-cheapest brand of some fairly standard product, or the second most expensive, or follow some other (perhaps unconscious) formula, because they think there's more of a connection between price and quality than really exists.

Slightly closer to topic, there are games where expensive chrome enhances the game, and games where it gets in the way. Judging how production values are going to affect sales is... well, not a game I'd want to get into. (In fact, that would probably make a cool game -- hire game designers, decide which of their ideas to develop and then produce, decide how to allocate up-front and per-unit production costs, set a sales price, and then see if you sell enough units to make a profit. Don't forget to factor in the different profit margins for sales via FLGS, online GS, online mass-marketer, and brick-and-mortar mass-marketer. Chrome has different impacts on sales in different markets, remember... The wider the mass appeal of a game, the wider the up-front costs are amortized. That's why Monopoly is so cheap...)

From what I've heard about this game, it sounds like I'd get my money's worth by buying it, even if I have to pay a premium over what it costs to produce the physical components in the numbers that are expected to sell.

Thought Hammer already has Race for the Galaxylisted for $20.97

Well, OK. I'll do that. I'll compare to Apples to Apples.

Apples to Apples - $13.99 at Thought Hammer (but out of stock)
Race for the Galaxy - $20.97 at Thought Hammer (preorder)

If you're wondering why some games come in an over-sized box with an unneeded board and wooden pieces that appear to have been tacked on at the last minute, perhaps it's because publishers are trying to avoid being accused of overcharging for a "mere" card game.

Nice!!

The Munchkin games retail at $24.95 with 168 cards which I always thought was outrageous.

But this game? Hmm. It might be worth it. Really it comes to play value, not component value. Gold-plated crap is still crap after all - though it tends to look better on the shelf.

A couple thoughts about costs (not nessasarily game related):

Oddly enough many people won't buy things that are too "low" priced. There's a perceived value for the money.

I know a number of people who only look at the most expensive lines of products (or maybe the 2nd most expensive) thinking that they will get something with more features thats made better. Sometimes this is the case, sometimes its not.

I've found that many college books can be aquired in a much cheaper international english vesion, that are virtually identical to the USA version. Similarly, on ebay, you can often buy international software for much cheaper (I found a year of Kaspersky Antivirus for only $13 on ebay, compared to the $60 it sells in the USA for). They are low priced for places like Asian countries, because thats what the market will bear, but they are higher priced in places like USA.

A couple examples (I'm not going to say whether I think they are worth the price or not, they are just high priced)

Mercedes cars. They are very expensive to buy and very expensive to repair.

Mac computers are usually higher priced, sometimes much higher priced.


A final note: Things like belkin cables at retail stores are often up to 1000% markup, yet people buy them all the time when they get things like a printer.

What color will player 5's cards be??

Different.