Dear Hasbro, Regressing on Articulation Is Balderdash.

Joined
Nov 2, 2015
Messages
57
Reaction score
0
come on hasbro, great Sculpts, but theres nothing you can do with them,
 
Joined
Sep 23, 2015
Messages
88
Reaction score
3
Kids can do a lot with them. How do you think kids played with the original Kenner toys? They didn't need much articulation.

I'm not saying it's a good idea for Hasbro to remove articulation, but collectors have got to remember: they toys are primarily for the kids. Kids make up the vast majority of the market for these toys, and most kids don't care particularly much for articulation (hell, I'm pretty sure the younger ones in the target age range don't even have a concept of what articulation is). Hasbro certainly doesn't ignore the collector, but for non-collector-focused lines, the kids come first, and articulation isn't the most important thing to kids. If certain factors are making it more expensive for Hasbro to continue to produce 3 3/4 in figures with SA, it's not the worst thing in the world if they cut back on articulation to make up that cost (what's worse is Hasbro's current neglect of the 3 3/4 in Black Series; if they were putting more effort into that line, the reduction in articulation in the mainline wouldn't be as much of a problem).
 
Joined
Aug 14, 2015
Messages
465
Reaction score
0
Location
Kansas
Kids can do a lot with them. How do you think kids played with the original Kenner toys? They didn't need much articulation.

I'm not saying it's a good idea for Hasbro to remove articulation, but collectors have got to remember: they toys are primarily for the kids. Kids make up the vast majority of the market for these toys, and most kids don't care particularly much for articulation (hell, I'm pretty sure the younger ones in the target age range don't even have a concept of what articulation is). Hasbro certainly doesn't ignore the collector, but for non-collector-focused lines, the kids come first, and articulation isn't the most important thing to kids. If certain factors are making it more expensive for Hasbro to continue to produce 3 3/4 in figures with SA, it's not the worst thing in the world if they cut back on articulation to make up that cost (what's worse is Hasbro's current neglect of the 3 3/4 in Black Series; if they were putting more effort into that line, the reduction in articulation in the mainline wouldn't be as much of a problem).
Apparently you didn't have Gi Joe and Star Wars figures at the same time as a kid. We noticed, and it limited play. The box of Gi Joe's came out a lot more than the box of Star Wars figures. This is a big reason the line died after Rotj. Take away the movie hype, and they really were slightly disappointing figures when compared to Joes.
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
11,139
Reaction score
286
Location
Hillsboro, IL, USA
Apparently you didn't have Gi Joe and Star Wars figures at the same time as a kid. We noticed, and it limited play. The box of Gi Joe's came out a lot more than the box of Star Wars figures. This is a big reason the line died after Rotj. Take away the movie hype, and they really were slightly disappointing figures when compared to Joes.
And many of us were faced with the exact same choice in the 1980s and still stuck with Star Wars figures. There was probably a brief period in the mid-1980s that I preferred GI Joe, but the vast majority of my childhood and teenage years were spent obsessing over Star Wars toys.
 
Joined
Aug 14, 2015
Messages
465
Reaction score
0
Location
Kansas
And many of us were faced with the exact same choice in the 1980s and still stuck with Star Wars figures. There was probably a brief period in the mid-1980s that I preferred GI Joe, but the vast majority of my childhood and teenage years were spent obsessing over Star Wars toys.
Sure, the point is "most kids don't care particularly much for articulation" is a pretty broad statement, and untrue for a lot of us. In fact most action figure lines in the 80s and 90s included more articulation than Vintage Star Wars. X-men, Mask, Starcom, Gi Joe, Exosquad, Transformers, Captain Power, Visionaries, Lego, potf2, tmnt (5 points but most were ball joints), Star Trek, and so on. Kids might not care so much for, say ankle articulation sure, but they do care if they can sit in vehicles correctly, or hold their weapons properly. Hasbro knew this in 1982, which is why they switched to swivel arms for Gi Joe. This matters for kids enjoyment of action figures.
 
Joined
Sep 23, 2015
Messages
88
Reaction score
3
Sure, the point is "most kids don't care particularly much for articulation" is a pretty broad statement, and untrue for a lot of us. In fact most action figure lines in the 80s and 90s included more articulation than Vintage Star Wars. X-men, Mask, Starcom, Gi Joe, Exosquad, Transformers, Captain Power, Visionaries, Lego, potf2, tmnt (5 points but most were ball joints), Star Trek, and so on. Kids might not care so much for, say ankle articulation sure, but they do care if they can sit in vehicles correctly, or hold their weapons properly. Hasbro knew this in 1982, which is why they switched to swivel arms for Gi Joe. This matters for kids enjoyment of action figures.
Yeah right. Most of these were barely more poseable than Kenner Star Wars. G.I. Joe and Transformers were the most poseable ones on this list (at least, when it comes to the 90's, for Transformers); most of the rest of these had no more than 5-7 points. Plus, most of those points were swivels (or sometimes hinges) for most of these lines. Why would you mention LEGO? The only point of articulation it has over Kenner Star Wars is wrist swivel. Stop with the revisionist history and face the facts: greater articulation only started becoming truly widespread in the late 90's to the mid 2000's. Before then, the most articulation most figures had was 9 points, and balljoints still weren't extremely common until then.
 
Joined
Aug 14, 2015
Messages
465
Reaction score
0
Location
Kansas
Yeah right. Most of these were barely more poseable than Kenner Star Wars. G.I. Joe and Transformers were the most poseable ones on this list (at least, when it comes to the 90's, for Transformers); most of the rest of these had no more than 5-7 points. Plus, most of those points were swivels (or sometimes hinges) for most of these lines. Why would you mention LEGO? The only point of articulation it has over Kenner Star Wars is wrist swivel. Stop with the revisionist history and face the facts: greater articulation only started becoming truly widespread in the late 90's to the mid 2000's. Before then, the most articulation most figures had was 9 points, and balljoints still weren't extremely common until then.
What revisionist history? Every line I listed has more articulation than the 5 poa Star Wars, even Lego figures!
I don't see what your point is, and you need to go back and count points of articulation. Star Trek- 14 points, X-men 10 point (if an action feature didn't get in the way) Starcom: 8 if counting the visor Visionaries: 12 points Mask : 7 points Exosquad: 11 points Captain Power: 9 points. I mention Lego because they have 40% more articulation than 5 poa Star Wars figures. Let that sink in, a toy with a hole drilled in it head so you don't choke on it beats out most 2016 3 3/4 Star Wars releases. The latest release of Darth Vader can't hold a lightsaber properly in two hands, but Captain Picard from 1991 sure can. Mission serie Luke in Hoth can't ride a Taun Taun from this century but 1992 Wolverine has no problem. 5 poa At-at driver can't sit in the At-at cockpit, Maybe 1982 Snake Eyes can drive. There has been a steady evolution of articulation, getting better and better in action figures in general, and Hasbro decided to heck with it and went right back to square one. It's not for the children, or the kids don't like or care about articulation, not for the nostalgia of the 70s. It's about what is the highest profit margin. What is the cheapest kind of figure we can produce and sell for the highest price. These 5 poa figures have in three years seen a 50% jump in retail price, from 5.00 a figure, to 7.50 in most places, you know, for the children.
 
Joined
Sep 23, 2015
Messages
88
Reaction score
3
What revisionist history? Every line I listed has more articulation than the 5 poa Star Wars, even Lego figures!
I don't see what your point is, and you need to go back and count points of articulation. Star Trek- 14 points, X-men 10 point (if an action feature didn't get in the way) Starcom: 8 if counting the visor Visionaries: 12 points Mask : 7 points Exosquad: 11 points Captain Power: 9 points. I mention Lego because they have 40% more articulation than 5 poa Star Wars figures. Let that sink in, a toy with a hole drilled in it head so you don't choke on it beats out most 2016 3 3/4 Star Wars releases. The latest release of Darth Vader can't hold a lightsaber properly in two hands, but Captain Picard from 1991 sure can. Mission serie Luke in Hoth can't ride a Taun Taun from this century but 1992 Wolverine has no problem. 5 poa At-at driver can't sit in the At-at cockpit, Maybe 1982 Snake Eyes can drive. There has been a steady evolution of articulation, getting better and better in action figures in general, and Hasbro decided to heck with it and went right back to square one. It's not for the children, or the kids don't like or care about articulation, not for the nostalgia of the 70s. It's about what is the highest profit margin. What is the cheapest kind of figure we can produce and sell for the highest price. These 5 poa figures have in three years seen a 50% jump in retail price, from 5.00 a figure, to 7.50 in most places, you know, for the children.
When referencing "X-Men", you have to specify what year, because they didn't start getting balljoints/swivel-hinge joints until 1996 or 1997; before then, they were 9-10 POA, max.

Also, you can't just take the number of POA as an indicator of how poseable it is; you have to factor in how useful that POA is. A LEGO minifigure may have "40% more articulation" than a Kenner Star Wars figure, but it's not 40% more poseable, because that additional 40% of POA is a swivel on each wrist. It can't move "40% better", because when you're counting POA, you're counting a number, when different POA may have varying levels of usefulness. A visor being able to flip up and down doesn't increase how well a figure can pose. A figure with 44 POA isn't necessarily more articulated than a figure with 26 POA, because many of the POA on the former might be less useful, or straight-up redundant. Another thing to take into account: whether or not it's useful to the average kid. Of course a collecter is probably gonna want to pose Darth Vader on the shelf gripping his lightsaber with both hands, but is a kid gonna want to play with that figure like that? Not necessarily. It depends on the kids, but I'd imagine that, for most, it would limit the range of the lightsaber when playing. (sidenote: the 1991 Captain Picard probably couldn't hold a lightsaber with both hands because his hands are angled wrong :^) ) Is a kid, when putting a figure in the cockpit of an AT-AT, gonna want it to look like it has its hands on controls and such? Depends on if the kid is 5 or 10. Remember, these toys are for kids 4+. Kids on the older end of the intended age range (4 to ~11 or 12) are probably gonna be caring more for these things, but the majority of the age range aren't gonna care that much.

Another thing to factor in: whether the thing you're trying to fit these figures into is designed for the type of figure that you're trying to fit into it. A vehicle made for a line whose figures have 5 POA are going to be designed to fit those 5 POA figures. The old Kenner AT-AT could fit the AT-AT drivers because it was designed to.

Also: the price going up in the past 3 years isn't a good thing, but it still hasn't gotten to the price that Star Wars figures were when they originally came out. Adjusted for inflation, those figures (which were $2.49 in 1978) cost $9.22 2016USD.
 
Joined
Aug 14, 2015
Messages
465
Reaction score
0
Location
Kansas
When referencing "X-Men", you have to specify what year, because they didn't start getting balljoints/swivel-hinge joints until 1996 or 1997; before then, they were 9-10 POA, max.

Also, you can't just take the number of POA as an indicator of how poseable it is; you have to factor in how useful that POA is. A LEGO minifigure may have "40% more articulation" than a Kenner Star Wars figure, but it's not 40% more poseable, because that additional 40% of POA is a swivel on each wrist. It can't move "40% better", because when you're counting POA, you're counting a number, when different POA may have varying levels of usefulness. A visor being able to flip up and down doesn't increase how well a figure can pose. A figure with 44 POA isn't necessarily more articulated than a figure with 26 POA, because many of the POA on the former might be less useful, or straight-up redundant. Another thing to take into account: whether or not it's useful to the average kid. Of course a collecter is probably gonna want to pose Darth Vader on the shelf gripping his lightsaber with both hands, but is a kid gonna want to play with that figure like that? Not necessarily. It depends on the kids, but I'd imagine that, for most, it would limit the range of the lightsaber when playing. (sidenote: the 1991 Captain Picard probably couldn't hold a lightsaber with both hands because his hands are angled wrong :^) ) Is a kid, when putting a figure in the cockpit of an AT-AT, gonna want it to look like it has its hands on controls and such? Depends on if the kid is 5 or 10. Remember, these toys are for kids 4+. Kids on the older end of the intended age range (4 to ~11 or 12) are probably gonna be caring more for these things, but the majority of the age range aren't gonna care that much.

Another thing to factor in: whether the thing you're trying to fit these figures into is designed for the type of figure that you're trying to fit into it. A vehicle made for a line whose figures have 5 POA are going to be designed to fit those 5 POA figures. The old Kenner AT-AT could fit the AT-AT drivers because it was designed to.

Also: the price going up in the past 3 years isn't a good thing, but it still hasn't gotten to the price that Star Wars figures were when they originally came out. Adjusted for inflation, those figures (which were $2.49 in 1978) cost $9.22 2016USD.
It's not so much poses as it is actions. For example take lego figures. You might not think that swivel wrists are a big thing, but it allows them to hold a bow staff with two hands, have a sword positioned across their body in a defensive pose, hold onto the rungs of a ladder, hold the reins of a horse or other beast, hold a rifle in a two hands guard type stance, basically anything that would require a person's wrist to rotate to look right. That's a minimal articulation increase, and the figure can do many more actions. Objectively, the actions an action figure can do are a huge factor in what makes a good action figure, it's in the name. As for the design of the vehicles, it's already been designed in the film. To get it to accommodate 5 poa figures, it has to be redesigned making it look less like what is actually representing. The Star Wars line in the past always did a great job of balancing between kids and collectors. Many vehicles had firing missiles, but they were designed to look like the guns on the real prop. Many times extra pieces were included to appeal to both kids and collectors, such as the case with the snow speeder. The Clone Wars figures got the firing missiles, where the vintage collection didn't (except maybe Boba Fett) There was a balance. That's all gone. Either start off completely new again at a more expensive price point in the 6 inch scale, or get a handful of figures every year from Walmart many of which will be repacks. They come in boxes now so it looks like your getting more than you really are. The 5 poa have seen a big price increase as discussed before, the reason for switching to 6 inch is to make more money per figure. It doesn't take that much more plastic or labor to make a six inch than a 3 3/4 but you can charge a lot more per figure. These decisions were all made not for the kids, the fans, the collectors, or any other reason besides to make more profit on what is already the most lucrative movie rights ever seen. By the way, almost 100% positive I could get that Picard to hold a light saber two handed, those swivel biceps add a lot of movemet ;) http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_9LWY9_VSOMQ/Stkt-V6e_jI/AAAAAAAAAYI/MsRkNwykUQs/s1600-h/picard.jpg
 
Joined
Sep 23, 2015
Messages
88
Reaction score
3
It's not so much poses as it is actions. For example take lego figures. You might not think that swivel wrists are a big thing, but it allows them to hold a bow staff with two hands, have a sword positioned across their body in a defensive pose, hold onto the rungs of a ladder, hold the reins of a horse or other beast, hold a rifle in a two hands guard type stance, basically anything that would require a person's wrist to rotate to look right. That's a minimal articulation increase, and the figure can do many more actions. Objectively, the actions an action figure can do are a huge factor in what makes a good action figure, it's in the name. As for the design of the vehicles, it's already been designed in the film. To get it to accommodate 5 poa figures, it has to be redesigned making it look less like what is actually representing. The Star Wars line in the past always did a great job of balancing between kids and collectors. Many vehicles had firing missiles, but they were designed to look like the guns on the real prop. Many times extra pieces were included to appeal to both kids and collectors, such as the case with the snow speeder. The Clone Wars figures got the firing missiles, where the vintage collection didn't (except maybe Boba Fett) There was a balance. That's all gone. Either start off completely new again at a more expensive price point in the 6 inch scale, or get a handful of figures every year from Walmart many of which will be repacks. They come in boxes now so it looks like your getting more than you really are. The 5 poa have seen a big price increase as discussed before, the reason for switching to 6 inch is to make more money per figure. It doesn't take that much more plastic or labor to make a six inch than a 3 3/4 but you can charge a lot more per figure. These decisions were all made not for the kids, the fans, the collectors, or any other reason besides to make more profit on what is already the most lucrative movie rights ever seen. By the way, almost 100% positive I could get that Picard to hold a light saber two handed, those swivel biceps add a lot of movemet ;) http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_9LWY9_VSOMQ/Stkt-V6e_jI/AAAAAAAAAYI/MsRkNwykUQs/s1600-h/picard.jpg
Again, as stated very early on in the thread, I don't think it's a good thing that Hasbro is regressing on articulation, but I don't think it's the worst thing in the world. There's probably some reason other than greed for Hasbro going back to 5 POA; less wanting to make more money off of the license, and more wanting to lose less money making it due to some rising cost somewhere in the production process. One of the bigger crimes is the neglect of the 3 3/4 Black Series, as you mentioned. If Hasbro were putting more effort into that line (as in, producing more than 8 figures a year, and fewer repacks), their regression of articulation in the main line wouldn't be as bad. Also, I don't think them starting the 6 in line was a decision born out of greed, or at least not purely so. There are many, many, maaaaany 1/12 scale collectors, collectors of lines like Marvel Legends and DCUC (now DC Multiverse), and for years, they had been desiring a 6 in scale Star Wars line. Hasbro gave that to them.

Also: again, my doubting of that Picard's ability to hold a lightsaber is not due to the bicep swivels; those are more than capable enough of getting the arms into the right position. My point is that the hands are not at a good angle to hold one; they're not angled up enough. ;)
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
11,139
Reaction score
286
Location
Hillsboro, IL, USA
Claiming that articulation is a measure of advancement in action figure design is a historically flawed argument, since 12POA figures existed as early as 1975. By the mid-1980s, 12-14 POA were pretty much the standard for most action figure lines that weren't being produced by Kenner. So, claiming that action figure articulation didn't advance beyond 5POA until the 1990s is completely inaccurate.

Kenner could have easily made 12POA Star Wars figures in 1978, because the technology was definitely there. However, they didn't for the exact same reasons that Hasbro returned to 5POA in 2013: cost. And it's not just materials costs. The amount of plastic used is just a part of the overall picture. The number of parts is a major factor as well, since more parts require more molds (which can cost $50,000-$100,000 or more for each mold) and longer assembly times. A standard 5POA figure has 7 parts (2 arms, 2 legs, head, torso front and torso back), but a standard super-articulated Star Wars figure has about 26-30 parts (depending on the figure, I'm looking at Kithaba right now and I count 28 parts, not including weapons).

So it breaks down like this:

2016 5POA Rogue One Stormtrooper:
2 arms
2 legs
head
torso front-half
torso back-half

2012 TVC Kithaba:
2 upper arms
2 forearms
2 hands
2 shoulder pins
2 elbow pins
2 upper legs
2 lower legs
2 feet
2 knee pins
2 ankle pins
head
upper torso front-half
upper torso back-half
pelvis front-half
pelvis back-half
molded skirt/holster
bandolier

Now, of these two figures, which one is going to take longer to assemble and paint? Even if the different is just a minute or two, that make a huge difference in labor costs if you are producing tens or hundreds of thousands of them (which is required to recoup the costs of the molds alone).

Also, we have to take into account the number of molds used. The RO Stormtrooper was probably created with two molds, one for the head and limbs and another for the torso halves. However, given the number of different colors and types of plastic used on Kithaba, he probably required 7 or more different molds. And these molds are not cheap. Hasbro likely spends hundreds of thousands of dollars just on the molds for ONE action figure. So, if that figure is included in a wave of 6 different figures, then you can multiply that cost by 6. And Hasbro can't just wait until they sell the figures to pay the factories for those molds, they have to pay for all of it up front, before a single toy is produced, and recoup that money when they sell those toys to the retailers. Those retailers buy the toys outright from Hasbro with the hopes that they can recoup their losses when they sell them to customers.

So, production costs are a major issue especially since the Chinese workforce is starting to demand the exact same rights and entitlements that American workers have come to take for granted. So, the costs are naturally going to go up as workers from the Eastern markets gain more rights. Plus, we have inflation and just the generally terrible state that our world economy is in. We've been paying more for less since the economic crisis of 2008 (which we haven't recovered from) and it's going to get exponentially worse before it even starts to get better.

One final thing, the term "action figure" is just a marketing ploy because toy manufacturers don't believe that boys would ever buy toys marketed as "dolls", which is what every Star Wars action figure really is. The "action" is supposed to come from the child's imagination, since the toy can't move by itself no matter how much articulation it has.
 
Joined
Aug 14, 2015
Messages
465
Reaction score
0
Location
Kansas
We've been over this before, it's not the assembly or paint as a Gi Joe has just as much time spent on assembly and just as much paint used for half the price. It's not the license fee as that fee for the likeness and so on doesn't depend on points of articulation. It's not the cost of oil, for plastics as Gi Joe comes with a ton of extra accessories using more plastic for less money. It could be the price of new molds, but if that were the case, they have a plethora of A New Hope molds they could reissue and are not. If a Gi Joe can be re-released for 7.50, with arguably better articulation, metal parts in the screws and t bar, and with an ****nal of accessories, where is the price difference for these Star Wars re-releases? Imagine a coworker continuously comes in to work an hour late. On Monday he says he has to wait on the train, Tuesday their was a bus accident, Wednesday he had a flat tire, Thursday his dog was sick, Friday he forgot his briefcase and had to go back for it, and so on. How many times do you accept an excuse before calling him on it? It's the cost of oil, Chinese labor, licensing fees, paint apps, we had to make new molds, it's got a Nerf gun in it, and on. These action figures are meant to represent characters in a movie that do actions. All things being equal, the more actions a figure can mimic from the movie, the better a representation it is. If articulation doesn't matter, why have it their in the first place? One piece, one mold, sell them for 4.00 a piece. Every argument people have put forward for 5 poa over Sa applies. The vehicles could be made so the figures recline a good number of vehicles made for 5 poa figures already have them reclining to some extent, these figures would be more durable, kids don't really care about articulation anyway. They would just use their imaginations. Heck you guys shouldn't complain, that's only taking away 5 points of articulation, the change from Sa to 5 poa was 7 to 9 points taken out, and you didn't seem to mind then. It may seem silly to you, but every statement made in defense of 5 poa figures could just as easily be made for making 3 3/4 no articulation figures. Their could even be a line of 5 poa figures released as a store exclusive somewhere, maybe Target. A handful of figures each year, many being repacks.
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
11,139
Reaction score
286
Location
Hillsboro, IL, USA
The licensing fee has to do with being allowed to make Star Wars toys in the first place, not just the actor likenesses. It's for the priviledge of making toys based on the Star Wars brand and placing the Star Wars logo on their packaging. It is also a major factor in why Star Wars figures will always cost more than GI Joe, which Hasbro owns so they don't have to pay a licensing fee to anyone.

Basically, it's not any one thing, it's a combination of everything.

And your analogy of the tardy co-worker doesn't really work at all, because Hasbro isn't apologizing or making excuses for the current state of the toy line. Plus, we are not Hasbro's employer and technically we are not even their primary customers. Hasbro sells to the retailers, not to us, and so they need to make toys that the retailers want to buy first.

However, if you are bound and determined to ignore the facts and stick to your preconceived notion that Hasbro is just greedy and attempting to gouge us for every penny, then you are fully within your rights to do that. Although, that would actually beg the question of why you are even giving your money to a company who would do that. If you truly believed that was what was happening, then you would have stopped buying Hasbro's products years ago.

A 0POA figure would be a statue or a statuette and I have no problem collecting those and I have purchased several of them (mostly X-Men related) in the past. In fact, some of my favorite collectibles are actually statues. If Hasbro were to do something similar to the Epic Force line, from 1998, or the Unleashed line, from 2002, then I would do exactly the same thing with those as I currently do with their action figure line, I would cherry pick what I want and only buy what I considered to be well made.
 
Joined
Aug 14, 2015
Messages
465
Reaction score
0
Location
Kansas
I'm pointing out that it can't be production cost. That accounts for the switch to 5 poa as you suggest. In your Kithaba example. The Cobra Zombie viper that was just re-released has just as many parts used, paint apps, and time spent assembling, but sells for the same price as a 5poa Star Wars figure. Now it's licensing cost. Hot toys has stated that the licensing cost for Star Wars is more than 6 figures.
Chan says these licensing deals still don’t come easily. Buying the rights to make Star Wars collectibles, for example, cost more than six figures in US dollars.
"It took half a year of negotiations before we got the licence,” Chan says. “The collectibles market is an important one and they were making sequels, so it took a very long time.”
http://m.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/ar...w-hong-kong-toy-maker-turned-his-hobby-global

So over a million dollars. Now how many Star Wars Figures are sold worldwide wide in a given year? Millions upon millions. So a price increase of a dollar or two above the price of a Sa super articulated Joe should well cover that, so a price somewhere around the eight to nine dollar range for an sa figure should well cover it (price sound familiar?) But new molds someone will cry. The Walmart exclusive Black series is heavy with re-releases just as Gi Joe is, and the cost saved from production on 5 poa should cover the cost of the new molds that have been produced for them, as you pointed out, they take much less labor, and still retail for the same as an sa Joe.

We as consumers are Hasbro's employer. If we don't buy the figure, they're not going to have a job making them. They are making excuses for the price increases we have seen in the last few years, I've pointed out several in my last post. And to get back to the late coworker analogy, his roommate Gi Joe seems to be able to show up on time more often than not.
 
Joined
Aug 14, 2015
Messages
465
Reaction score
0
Location
Kansas
Sorry for the bad sentence structure, I'm on my phone and it makes editing more difficult. There should really be an edit button.
 
Joined
Aug 14, 2015
Messages
465
Reaction score
0
Location
Kansas
I'm pointing out that it can't be production cost that accounts for the switch to 5 poa as you suggest. In your Kithaba example, the Cobra Zombie viper that was just re-released has just as many parts used, paint apps, and time spent assembling, but sells for the same price as a 5 poa Star Wars figure. Now it's licensing cost. Hot toys has stated that the licensing cost for Star Wars is more than 6 figures.

Chan says these licensing deals still don’t come easily. Buying the rights to make Star Wars collectibles, for example, cost more than six figures in US dollars.
"It took half a year of negotiations before we got the licence,” Chan says. “The collectibles market is an important one and they were making sequels, so it took a very long time.”
http://m.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/art...s-hobby-global

So over a million dollars. Now how many Star Wars Figures are sold worldwide wide in a given year? Millions upon millions. A price increase of a dollar or two above the price of a super articulated Joe should well cover that, making the price somewhere around the eight to nine dollar range for an sa figure to account for license fees. (price sound familiar?) But new molds someone will cry. The Walmart exclusive Black series is heavy with re-releases just as Gi Joe is, and the cost saved from production on 5 poa should cover the cost of the new molds that have been produced for that line. As you pointed out, they take much less labor, and still retail for the same as an sa Joe.

We as consumers are Hasbro's employer. If we don't buy the figure, they're not going to have a job making them. They are making excuses for the price increases we have seen in the last few years, I've pointed out several in my last post. And to get back to the late coworker analogy, his roommate Gi Joe seems to be able to show up on time more often than not.
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
11,139
Reaction score
286
Location
Hillsboro, IL, USA
And to get back to the late coworker analogy, his roommate Gi Joe seems to be able to show up on time more often than not.
You forgot to mention that GI Joe is the CEO's nephew and can never actually get fired from his job. But even with everything stacked in his favor, he still can't keep up with the late coworker's sales numbers. So, even though the late coworker shows up late a few times doesn't change the fact that he outshines almost everyone else in the company when it comes to profitability.

As for the licensing costs, Hasbro paid $500 million for the Star Wars license in 1998. That's more than the reported production budgets for the OT and PT combined. From what I've read, they got caught in a bidding war against Mattel and that's why they ended up having to pay so much. So, the licensing costs aren't a set price. The cost depends on how many other companies are competing for that license and that's just for the right to make Star Wars toys and doesn't include the production costs of the toys themselves. It's the main reason that the cost of the POTF2 action figures jumped up $2 between 1997 and 1999.
 
Joined
Aug 14, 2015
Messages
465
Reaction score
0
Location
Kansas
What we need to confirm or deny this is the actual cost of licensing fee, and the number of figures sold in that time period. Regardless, it's not "for the kids", labor cost for sa, or mold production. It's profit plain and simple. It can't be denied that a lot of what Hasbro has been producing lately has been sub par, both in terms of quality of the product, and value for money spent. This should worry any fan of the line. This attitude has been seen long before the decline in Star Wars. When Hasbro acquired the rights to marvel legends, they did the same thing. Reduced articulation, raised the prices, and demished the quality. See the hasblow joint. They tried to do the same thing with Gi Joe when Retaliation came out. Again reduced articulation, started making cheaper flimsier vehicles, and raised prices. In each case they almost wrecked the line. These choices by Hasbro do not exist in a vacuum, but seem to be a pattern of seeing what they can get away with. The only thing helping Star Wars is the movie hype, but as soon as that wears off, you get this sick feeling in your stomach that you've been had, and their really is a sucker born every minute.
 
Joined
Sep 23, 2015
Messages
88
Reaction score
3
What we need to confirm or deny this is the actual cost of licensing fee, and the number of figures sold in that time period. Regardless, it's not "for the kids", labor cost for sa, or mold production. It's profit plain and simple. It can't be denied that a lot of what Hasbro has been producing lately has been sub par, both in terms of quality of the product, and value for money spent. This should worry any fan of the line. This attitude has been seen long before the decline in Star Wars. When Hasbro acquired the rights to marvel legends, they did the same thing. Reduced articulation, raised the prices, and demished the quality. See the hasblow joint. They tried to do the same thing with Gi Joe when Retaliation came out. Again reduced articulation, started making cheaper flimsier vehicles, and raised prices. In each case they almost wrecked the line. These choices by Hasbro do not exist in a vacuum, but seem to be a pattern of seeing what they can get away with. The only thing helping Star Wars is the movie hype, but as soon as that wears off, you get this sick feeling in your stomach that you've been had, and their really is a sucker born every minute.
You mention Hasbro' acquiring of Marvel Legends and mention how the line declined when Hasbro started producing it, but you ignore the fact that it has come back strong in the past 4 years, to the point where it is now (in many collectors' opinions) of higher consistent quality than when ToyBiz was producing the line. Most of the time, figures have as much or nearly as much useful articulation as a given ToyBiz Marvel Legends and *gasp* actually look like human beings, as opposed to some of ToyBiz's gangly monstrosities. Paint is still relatively sparse compared to ToyBiz, but, at least in the past year or so, it has been far more consistent in quality now than it was when Hasbro first took over the line.
 
Joined
Aug 14, 2015
Messages
465
Reaction score
0
Location
Kansas
Sure after pretty much tanking the line at one point. They had to stop producing figures for a while it was so bad. Then came out with the return of marvel legends doing a better job. All three brands I mentioned (Gi Joe, Marvel Legends, and now Star Wars) went through a period where Hasbro tried to cut corners and reduce quality. Marvel (at the time) and Gi Joe didn't have the hype that Star Wars had, and it nearly killed the line. What happens in three or four years when a new Star Wars movie release is routine? When the hype wears off? Do you think Poe's X-wing, Tfa Millennium Falcon and so on can sell based on their own merits as toys at the prices they are asking?
 
Joined
Sep 23, 2015
Messages
88
Reaction score
3
Sure after pretty much tanking the line at one point. They had to stop producing figures for a while it was so bad. Then came out with the return of marvel legends doing a better job. All three brands I mentioned (Gi Joe, Marvel Legends, and now Star Wars) went through a period where Hasbro tried to cut corners and reduce quality. Marvel (at the time) and Gi Joe didn't have the hype that Star Wars had, and it nearly killed the line. What happens in three or four years when a new Star Wars movie release is routine? When the hype wears off? Do you think Poe's X-wing, Tfa Millennium Falcon and so on can sell based on their own merits as toys at the prices they are asking?
As a disclaimer, I don't follow the GI Joe line much, so I'm not 100% sure about all this, but this is just my thoughts on what I can tell.

I forgot to mention that, as far as I can tell, GI Joe didn't quite suffer the same effects you claimed it did. Sure, the line declined after Retaliation, but that decline came in the form mostly of limiting it to be Toys R Us exclusive. There wasn't a significant reduction in articulation (at least, not in the non-movie line), and I can assume from you being blatantly damn wrong about that, that you're likely also wrong about the decrease in the plastic quality on the vehicles (unless it's similar to the way the plastic quality for Transformers "decreased"). The only thing that really happened was a price bump and a limiting of the line to being TRU exclusive.
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
11,139
Reaction score
286
Location
Hillsboro, IL, USA
Do you think Poe's X-wing, Tfa Millennium Falcon and so on can sell based on their own merits as toys at the prices they are asking?
I didn't buy Poe's X-Wiing or the TFA Falcon because those toys looked like garbage even when the TFA hype was at its strongest. However, the severe reduction in quality of the vehicles is really a separate issue from the return to 5POA. I don't believe that merely having less articulation compared to another figure means that a specific toy is lower quality and I definitely don't believe that more articulation equals higher quality. So, the entire quality debate is separate from the articulation debate.
 
Joined
Aug 14, 2015
Messages
465
Reaction score
0
Location
Kansas
The Retaliation line came out, the movie was pushed back, and the figures were pulled. They were re-released when the movie came out. Figure articulation was reduced in many mainline figures and completely striped down to 5 poa in the vehicle drivers. They sat, and sat, blocking later better figures. This went on in major department stores for so long retailers refused to carry more Joe's. They couldn't give some of the stuff away. Especially the pos motorcycles. It wasn't so much that Toys R Us got the exclusive, but rather Toys r Us was the only retailer willing to carry the line after that disaster.

"Yes, of course there are costs associated with new tooling for figures that are 5 points of articulation, but as explained from Mr. DePriest, it’s more than just the new tooling. Manufacturing costs for figures with that many joints and movement points are extremely expensive above and beyond the tooled parts, so even using existing tooling was cost prohibitive in most cases.

They weighed this fact with the idea that many of these vehicles were being geared for children, who would do little more than slam the figure in the cockpit and drive it around, and the decision was made…if they had to cut articulation, the drivers were the best place to do it. It is a constant battle between quality of the product and the costs that can be absorbed creating that product, and in a year when they are trying to build the brand back up, they have to be extremely prudent."

http://generalsjoes.com/2012/02/11/articulation-and-g-i-joe-retaliation-the-elephant-in-the-room/

Sound familiar? This mismanagement tanked the line! And it turns out, figures with full articulation can be produced and sold for 7.50 a piece. The exact same price Hasbro is charging for a 5 poa figure.

http://www.hisstank.com/forum/g-i-j...a-would-solve-wave-1-peg-warming-problem.html

Here you can read about ideas to solve the peg warming problem, and the extent of the reduction of quality.
If you don't believe what I'm saying, that's fine, I don't expect anyone to just take my word for it, but do your own research before assuming I'm "blatantly damn wrong". This has all happened before, fans with pitchforks, petitions to bring back full sa, fans refusing to buy the cheapend products. It's all been done. And the only thing proping Star Wars toys up is the hype of the movies.
 
Joined
Aug 14, 2015
Messages
465
Reaction score
0
Location
Kansas
I didn't buy Poe's X-Wiing or the TFA Falcon because those toys looked like garbage even when the TFA hype was at its strongest. However, the severe reduction in quality of the vehicles is really a separate issue from the return to 5POA. I don't believe that merely having less articulation compared to another figure means that a specific toy is lower quality and I definitely don't believe that more articulation equals higher quality. So, the entire quality debate is separate from the articulation debate.
Not really. 6 inch figures require... call it a quarters worth more of plastic and a couple more cents in paint, but sell for considerably more money. The labor is the same, the license fee is the same, to put it simply 6 inch are more profitable than 3 3/4th. The reason for Kenner going with 3 3/4th in the first place was for the vehicles. So if the new vehicles are garbage and the figures are 5 poa, what is really left for 3 3/4 collectors who want Sa? Walmart is pretty much it. For a lot of us, articulation defiantly adds to the desirability of the figure. Secondary market prices back this up. That much at least should be obvious. More articulation doesn't necessarily equal higher quality, but higher quality action figures as a general rule usually have more articulation. It's like keyless entry in a car. It doesn't make the car higher quality, but higher quality cars usually have keyless entry.
 
Joined
Sep 23, 2015
Messages
88
Reaction score
3
If only you would actually read my posts, somelikeithoth...

"There wasn't a significant reduction in articulation (at least, not in the non-movie line),"

Yeah, they cut articulation in the movie line. That did not carry over to the line after it.

Also: If 6 inch figures only cost that much more, than 3 3/4 figures probably only costs as much as 6 inch figures cost more than 3 3/4 in figures to make in the first place (e.g. If 6 in figures only cost "a quarter's worth more plastic and a couple more cents in paint", then a 3 3/4 figure must only costs a quarter and couple cents to make in the first place). 6 in figures are, at least, nearly 2 times the mass of an equivalent 3 3/4 in figure. Double the cost adds up when you're making 1000's of figures.
 
Joined
Aug 14, 2015
Messages
465
Reaction score
0
Location
Kansas
If only you would actually read my posts, somelikeithoth...

"There wasn't a significant reduction in articulation (at least, not in the non-movie line),"

Yeah, they cut articulation in the movie line. That did not carry over to the line after it.

Also: If 6 inch figures only cost that much more, than 3 3/4 figures probably only costs as much as 6 inch figures cost more than 3 3/4 in figures to make in the first place (e.g. If 6 in figures only cost "a quarter's worth more plastic and a couple more cents in paint", then a 3 3/4 figure must only costs a quarter and couple cents to make in the first place). 6 in figures are, at least, nearly 2 times the mass of an equivalent 3 3/4 in figure. Double the cost adds up when you're making 1000's of figures.
I did read your post, the next line after the movie line was the 50th that only Toys r us would take. Every other brick and mortar dropped them after the movie line.

It adds up? Yeah to bigger profits. It's a small increase in materials but a large increase in profit margin. Just for illustration sake, say a 3 3/4 figure cost 3 dollars to produce and sells for 12.00. That's 9.00 in profit. A 6 inch figure cost 4.50 to produce but sells for 20.00. That's 15.50 in profit. I don't know the exact numbers, but you get the idea. A few ounces of plastic isn't an expensive thing at all, especially buying In bulk, but you can sell the larger figure for substantially more. All the production costs are the same, except raw materials.
 
Joined
Sep 23, 2015
Messages
88
Reaction score
3
You completely ignored my point that 6 in figures are at least twice the mass of an equivalent 3 3/4 in figure. Obviously, the additional cost of plastic is going to be more than you say it is. You're right that a few ounces of plastic isn't that expensive, but you can't double the mass of the figure without at least roughly doubling the cost to make it. Also, making a mold for a larger figure is going to cost at least a bit more than making a mold for a smaller figure. More steel = more cost. You also have to pay at least a small amount more for packaging (more material in the package) and shipping. Also: Hasbro does not sell things to stores for their MSRP. They sell them significantly lower than that but still higher than the production cost, and that's where Hasbro makes its profit. The stores than sell them for MSRP, which is where the stores make their profit. I can assure you, for various reasons (many of them stated above), that Hasbro is not making $15.50 in profit on a figure that, in stores, is sold for $20.00.
 
Joined
Aug 14, 2015
Messages
465
Reaction score
0
Location
Kansas
You completely ignored my point that 6 in figures are at least twice the mass of an equivalent 3 3/4 in figure. Obviously, the additional cost of plastic is going to be more than you say it is. You're right that a few ounces of plastic isn't that expensive, but you can't double the mass of the figure without at least roughly doubling the cost to make it. Also, making a mold for a larger figure is going to cost at least a bit more than making a mold for a smaller figure. More steel = more cost. You also have to pay at least a small amount more for packaging (more material in the package) and shipping. Also: Hasbro does not sell things to stores for their MSRP. They sell them significantly lower than that but still higher than the production cost, and that's where Hasbro makes its profit. The stores than sell them for MSRP, which is where the stores make their profit. I can assure you, for various reasons (many of them stated above), that Hasbro is not making $15.50 in profit on a figure that, in stores, is sold for $20.00.
The mass doesn't matter in any meaningful way! Think about it, it doesn't take twice the cost at all. First off, a 6 inch figure is 38% bigger than a 3 3/4th not 50% It doesn't take someone twice as long to assemble a six inch figure, it's the same, it doesn't take twice the franchise fee, it's the same, more steal to make the mold? Look at the price of steel. Now devide that extra cost of steal by 100,000 figures (whatever the life of the mold is). Much less than a penny per figure. Shipping? Do you honestly think they pay the same rates to ship hundreds of thousands of boxes for what you or I ship one?!? Here's an example:

https://m.aliexpress.com/item/32650403488.html#autostay

This factory will produce, package, ship and make a profit on 6 inch figures for 2.50 a figure, and your only buying 10 How much do you think the factory is costing Hasbro per figure?

Each 6 inch figure sells for 60% more than a 3 3/4 inch sa figure (12.00 vs 20.00) but the labor cost and the franchise fee is the same. The other expenses you sight are negligible at best. How is the additional cost of plastic going to be more?!? I showed you the cost of raw plastic, and even pick the most expensive plastic they quoted!
 
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Messages
7,226
Reaction score
1,427
Location
Sacramento, CA
The switch to 5poa was a risk vs reward decision imo. Yes, costs of labor and plastic have risen. We saw that during TVC. Legacy figures were $8 and vintage quickly jumped to $10...then higher by the time the line ended.

Here's the thing, TVC wasn't a homerun. It didn't sell in fantastic numbers. We can go through it wave by wave but I remember seeing half of wave 1 pegwarming. And it just kept the line perpetually stuck. Whole waves skipped normal retail because previous waves didn't sell. Now, a lot of that was character selection but the price was a huge hindrance. I think everyone can agree it's a lot more costly to produce a SA figure than a 5poa figure. With that increase in cost, its a bigger risk that the figures won't sell. Hasbro only sees a wave selling through and another ordered. They don't sweat which figures they just want the re-order.

So what they had on their hands was a costly line, that wasn't selling and it lacked the support of a movie. It had been what 5 years since the last movie? New star wars figures had been going for 15 years. Overall enthusiasm was down. They obviously weren't going to stop making the toys. The license is worth too much. So, a gamble. A return to a simpler format figure with the hope that the sale numbers would be decent enough.

If some 5poa figures don't sell you didn't risk nearly as much as when SA don't sell.

Hasbro chose to spread their money around rather than dump all their resources into an expensive line.

It's like a sports team...yes everyone wants a team full of allstars. But they chew up all the budget. So you can dump all your money into a few stars leaving only enough for scrubs, or you can spread it out over enough different above average players.

5poa don't need to perform amazing, just above average. SA need to be an amazing seller every time.
 
Joined
Aug 14, 2015
Messages
465
Reaction score
0
Location
Kansas
Look at it like this. If a 6 inch figure uses 38% more material to produce, but accounts for a 60% price increase over a 3 3/4 inch figure, the assembly time, licensing fees and so on are the same. That would mean materials account for 76% of the price of an action figure. (Licensing fees and articulation assembly time being equal) if 76% percent of the price is in materials, that would mean 3 3/4 inch sa should be 24% more expensive than a 5 poa or, $9.22 as 76% of the cost is the same. If the license is 62.5% of the cost of a figure, (Gi Joe $7.50, Star Wars sa $12.00) then a 5 poa should run $4.50 as the license for sa and 5 poa is the same.

On each line they are using a different metric to justify price.
 
Joined
Aug 14, 2015
Messages
465
Reaction score
0
Location
Kansas
The switch to 5poa was a risk vs reward decision imo. Yes, costs of labor and plastic have risen. We saw that during TVC. Legacy figures were $8 and vintage quickly jumped to $10...then higher by the time the line ended.

Here's the thing, TVC wasn't a homerun. It didn't sell in fantastic numbers. We can go through it wave by wave but I remember seeing half of wave 1 pegwarming. And it just kept the line perpetually stuck. Whole waves skipped normal retail because previous waves didn't sell. Now, a lot of that was character selection but the price was a huge hindrance. I think everyone can agree it's a lot more costly to produce a SA figure than a 5poa figure. With that increase in cost, its a bigger risk that the figures won't sell. Hasbro only sees a wave selling through and another ordered. They don't sweat which figures they just want the re-order.

So what they had on their hands was a costly line, that wasn't selling and it lacked the support of a movie. It had been what 5 years since the last movie? New star wars figures had been going for 15 years. Overall enthusiasm was down. They obviously weren't going to stop making the toys. The license is worth too much. So, a gamble. A return to a simpler format figure with the hope that the sale numbers would be decent enough.

If some 5poa figures don't sell you didn't risk nearly as much as when SA don't sell.

Hasbro chose to spread their money around rather than dump all their resources into an expensive line.

It's like a sports team...yes everyone wants a team full of allstars. But they chew up all the budget. So you can dump all your money into a few stars leaving only enough for scrubs, or you can spread it out over enough different above average players.

5poa don't need to perform amazing, just above average. SA need to be an amazing seller every time.
That's fine but Hasbro need to stop making excuses and pretending it's something it's not. Don't say it's for the kids, sa figures aren't durable, kids have trouble posing sa figures, kids don't care about detail, they can't pick up a larger X-wing and so on. Hasbro seems to think my kids are to dumb to figure out how to bend a knee joint, to weak to lift three pounds, to careless to not break their toys, to unobservant to notice sculpted detail, and so on. What kind of stupid, half brain dead miscreants do they think we are raising?
 
Joined
Sep 23, 2015
Messages
88
Reaction score
3
You seem to have no idea how size and mass correlate to each other, somelikeithoth. Mass = how much matter is in a thing. Size = how big that collection of matter is. Mass increases at a greater rate than size. Let's give a (very) rough example. Let's say, for example, you have two of the same type of rock. One is ~50% bigger than the other. The bigger rock will be ~100% the mass, or double, the smaller rock, even though it's only 50% bigger. Now, the numbers themselves are probably not accurate, but now you get the rough concept. Mass increases significantly faster than size. Mass, in this case, is how much actual plastic is in the figure; in Earth's gravity, mass is interchangeable with weight. Even if a 6in figure is only 38% bigger size-wise, it's going to have at least ~75% more mass/weight, which means at leastr ~75% more plastic. I was talking about the plastic cost, not the assembly time.

Also, I like how you ignored most of everything Maverick10126 said so you could only respond to what you weren't absolutely beaten down on.

Another point of mine you absolutely blew past because you probably couldn't actually come up with any kind of legitimate counter: Hasbro isn't making $15.50 in profit off these figures because they aren't the ones selling them for $20.00. Hasbro sells figures to stores for a significantly lower price than the consumer pays for them. Even if it only costs ~$4.50 to make a 6 in figure, Hasbro is selling it to the store for probably less than $10.00; Hasbro, in this scenario (which we are not sure is accurate or not) is making $5.50 in profit. Then the store sells the figure for MSRP, or $20.00. They make $10.00 in profit in this scenario. You don't seem to understand how stores make money.

Also, as Maverick mentioned, labor cost and plastic cost have risen. I don't know what exactly is causing plastic cost to rise, but I know what's causing labor cost to rise: workers demanding more rights. Workers in countries like China and Vietnam are demanding better treatment and more rights, as well as more pay, so labor cost is rising. I'm fine with paying a bit more for a toy if it means the people making it are getting paid/treated better.

I'm likely not representing my arguments quite as well as I could if I spent more time and energy on this, but I can't, because you're exhausting to argue with.
 
Joined
Aug 14, 2015
Messages
465
Reaction score
0
Location
Kansas
You seem to have no idea how size and mass correlate to each other, somelikeithoth. Mass = how much matter is in a thing. Size = how big that collection of matter is. Mass increases at a greater rate than size. Let's give a (very) rough example. Let's say, for example, you have two of the same type of rock. One is ~50% bigger than the other. The bigger rock will be ~100% the mass, or double, the smaller rock, even though it's only 50% bigger. Now, the numbers themselves are probably not accurate, but now you get the rough concept. Mass increases significantly faster than size. Mass, in this case, is how much actual plastic is in the figure; in Earth's gravity, mass is interchangeable with weight. Even if a 6in figure is only 38% bigger size-wise, it's going to have at least ~75% more mass/weight, which means at leastr ~75% more plastic. I was talking about the plastic cost, not the assembly time.

Mass does not matter in any significant way. A big fig 20 inch figure costs the same as a 6 inch black series figure which costs the same as an R2-d2 black series. Gotham figures are 6 inch and run some $12.00. A 3 3/4 Black series Yoda costs $12.00 just like the Chewbaca from the 3 3/4 black series. Marvel legends Cable cost $20.00 just as did Kitty Pryde. Mass doesn't matter in any meaningful way in the scale we are talking about.

Also, I like how you ignored most of everything Maverick10126 said so you could only respond to what you weren't absolutely beaten down on.

He's actually agreeing with my original point, that this decision isn't "for the kids" as you say, but a business decision driven by profit.

Another point of mine you absolutely blew past because you probably couldn't actually come up with any kind of legitimate counter: Hasbro isn't making $15.50 in profit off these figures because they aren't the ones selling them for $20.00. Hasbro sells figures to stores for a significantly lower price than the consumer pays for them. Even if it only costs ~$4.50 to make a 6 in figure, Hasbro is selling it to the store for probably less than $10.00; Hasbro, in this scenario (which we are not sure is accurate or not) is making $5.50 in profit. Then the store sells the figure for MSRP, or $20.00. They make $10.00 in profit in this scenario. You don't seem to understand how stores make money

I didn't answer it because I didn't want to call you out on your reading comprehension. I said it added up to higher profits, not to whom. It doesn't matter how many middle men you add into the situation, the profit per figure stays the same. Each party just gets a smaller slice. Stores are more likely to buy a figure line when they make $5.00 per figure sale than when they make $2.00 per figure sale.
 
Joined
Sep 23, 2015
Messages
88
Reaction score
3
You seem to have no idea how size and mass correlate to each other, somelikeithoth. Mass = how much matter is in a thing. Size = how big that collection of matter is. Mass increases at a greater rate than size. Let's give a (very) rough example. Let's say, for example, you have two of the same type of rock. One is ~50% bigger than the other. The bigger rock will be ~100% the mass, or double, the smaller rock, even though it's only 50% bigger. Now, the numbers themselves are probably not accurate, but now you get the rough concept. Mass increases significantly faster than size. Mass, in this case, is how much actual plastic is in the figure; in Earth's gravity, mass is interchangeable with weight. Even if a 6in figure is only 38% bigger size-wise, it's going to have at least ~75% more mass/weight, which means at leastr ~75% more plastic. I was talking about the plastic cost, not the assembly time.

Mass does not matter in any significant way. A big fig 20 inch figure costs the same as a 6 inch black series figure which costs the same as an R2-d2 black series. Gotham figures are 6 inch and run some $12.00. A 3 3/4 Black series Yoda costs $12.00 just like the Chewbaca from the 3 3/4 black series. Marvel legends Cable cost $20.00 just as did Kitty Pryde. Mass doesn't matter in any meaningful way in the scale we are talking about.

Also, I like how you ignored most of everything Maverick10126 said so you could only respond to what you weren't absolutely beaten down on.

He's actually agreeing with my original point, that this decision isn't "for the kids" as you say, but a business decision driven by profit.

Another point of mine you absolutely blew past because you probably couldn't actually come up with any kind of legitimate counter: Hasbro isn't making $15.50 in profit off these figures because they aren't the ones selling them for $20.00. Hasbro sells figures to stores for a significantly lower price than the consumer pays for them. Even if it only costs ~$4.50 to make a 6 in figure, Hasbro is selling it to the store for probably less than $10.00; Hasbro, in this scenario (which we are not sure is accurate or not) is making $5.50 in profit. Then the store sells the figure for MSRP, or $20.00. They make $10.00 in profit in this scenario. You don't seem to understand how stores make money

I didn't answer it because I didn't want to call you out on your reading comprehension. I said it added up to higher profits, not to whom. It doesn't matter how many middle men you add into the situation, the profit per figure stays the same. Each party just gets a smaller slice. Stores are more likely to buy a figure line when they make $5.00 per figure sale than when they make $2.00 per figure sale.
I don't think Maverick was necessarily fully agreeing with you; he was opposing you at least as much as he was siding with you, if not more. Also, I never said that this decision was entirely "for the kids". I'd be absolutely stupid to say there isn't at least some small level of greed (whether good or bad) inherent in any decision a corporate entity makes. My point is that it isn't so much them being moneygrubbing, as it is them not wanting to create a failure of a product that doesn't sell as well as it could.

I was saying mass matters in terms of price increases in a single line. Yes, different figures in the same line with different masses sell at the same price, but that's because it would be a nightmare to individually price each figure based on its mass, at least for a retail line. Also: Diamond Select Gotham figures (which are 7" scale, by the way, not 6") retail at $24.99. If you found some at $12.00, they were on sale.

My point about the splitting of profit still stands, because while the same total amount of profit is still being made, the amount Hasbro's getting is nowhere near the absurd amount you claim. An increase in price wouldn't give Hasbro itself nearly as much more money as you claim it would, meaning it's less likely to be flat-out greed.
 
Top