McFarlane seems to be proving that wired capes are actually cheap to mass produce. They're making $23 and $25 figures that have wired capes, some with multiple colored fabrics in them as well. Was this always obvious? And if so why didn't other companies making low cost figures do it until now?
>>11033761The reason it wasn't more common, or a viably priced alternative, was because most toy factories didn't provide that service. Now that wired cloth goods are becoming more common, more toy factories are starting to be able to produce them in-house (as opposed to having to get them shipped from elsewhere, which bumped the price) and so it's more viable. The fact that there's a sewing component does mean that it's extra labor compared to a plastic cape, so it'll still cost more than usual.
>>11033761The Jada M. Bison also had a wired cape at the $25 price point
>>11033761>why didn't other companies making low cost figures do it until nowMcFarlane is a private company that sells toys to make a profit.Companies like Jazwares, Bandai, and Hasbro are public companies that need to make a profit bigger than the previous years and expects that growth year after year.The difference is that private companies can try more every year, as long as they're making money off of it, while public companies will only seek to cut costs to ensure they make more money than the last. Big companies will only try something new if they're going to make more money, like copying a popular trend. They'll also nickle and dime you for adding more features.Basically, innovation will never happen with big companies, and smaller companies are quicker to react to demand.>>11033768I doubt wired capes are more expensive than molded capes. Barbies have clothes and they usually don't cost more than an action figure does. And since capes are loose, they don't need to be tailored on to bodies like you see on more expensive lines like One:12s.McFarlane probably just started doing it because there were enough fans asking for it.
>>11033778>I doubt wired capes are more expensive than molded capes.Well, doubt all you want, doesn't change the fact.
What makes you say they are more expensive?We've constantly been told that the steel molds involved in producing the plastic figures are the most expensive part of manufacturing. More transparent companies, many of which are Kickstarters have broken down the price on this, so we know what we've been told is true.We also know that Barbie shit is cheap as shit to produce. The difference between Barbie crap and something like Mezco/HotToys is that the costumes are fitted to the bodies, hence looking tight vs loose and bulky on Barbies/MEGOs. So there's an obvious correlation with costs there.Given that McFarlane is including wired capes are included with McFarlane's basic figures, it's cost isn't going to be more expensive than the molded plastic capes.Toy companies aren't charities and are going to price their toys to match their cost, even private ones like McFarlane or Jada.
>>11033778>smaller companies>Mcfarelane ToysPardon?
>>11033814They're a small to medium sized company. ~$20million according to google as of 2022.Whether they are today or not, it's hard to say, since they're a private company, but they certaintly not as big as Hasbro, Jazwares, Mattel, or other mainstream companies. So even if DC action figures are paying off bigger than they've ever experienced, they're probably at the hundred million level at most. They're not even Good Smile or Mega Blocks sized, muchless as big as shit companies like SpinMasters or Jakks Pacific.I mean, pic related was their biggest toyline of all time up until they got their DC license. IT's what allowed them to buy the DC license, plus a dozen other ones that petered out (which says a lot about how much money they made with Fnaf to afford the DC license after those other ones failed).
>>11033793It has been the perception that wired capes are not cheap enough to mass produce on 20-25 dollar figuresfor a long time. Wired capes mostly being on higher end premium figures like Mafex, and third parties who made wired capes charging about as much or more as the figures cost for wired capes made to be put on the 20-25 dollar figures did not really help to counter this perception either.The steel molds are obviously the most expensive part, no one disputes that, but the tool already has to be made for the figure, so we don't really have a good gauge on how much including a plastic cape in that tool adds if anything. It may mean the tool needs to be larger so it may have an impact on price, so that may be a good point. But it didn't fit what the collector could see from the facts on the ground until recently when McFarlane and Jada put out cheap wired capes.
>>11033761The problem is with a lot of domestic cloth goods, that they don't use a material with a high enough thread count so it looks really bad. I tend to like cloth capes too when they're done well. But companies like McFarlane are using basketball shorts material for theirs and it does not look good.
>>11034159It's good enough for me at 23 bucks.
>>11034159It depends on the figure. Look at the cape on Detective comics #1 Batman. Idk if it was hyperbole but some reviewers have said it feels as good as the Mafex. True or not, the material between figures definitely changes from figure to figure.
>>11034184I haven't yet seen a McFarlane that doesn't use the basketball shorts material. I have the six pack and they all have it. I can tell just by looking at Robin in the OP that he has it too.
>>11033793Companies have literally told us it's more expensive. Hasbro has said this, I believe Mattel has said this. Steel molds are expensive, but only in the sense of manufacturing. They'll usually cost in the thousands to low tens of thousands. We've heard roughly how much they cost from Spero Toys, a small KS based company, and it was in that ballpark, and he managed to make his original KS with something like 4 total molds. With the number of figures made, even after materials, labor, and shipping they're still just paying at most dollars per figure (which are then sold to retailers for around 30-70% of msrp depending on expected margins). That's of course for the bigger companies that make thousands and thousands of units.Anyways, costs add up, and if your factory can't do cloth, you'd have to get it shipped from elsewhere which is labor plus shipping. Time is literally money, and the quicker these are churned out, the more units they can make. If wired cloth goods take time to sew, that's another added cost. Basically there are tons of potential reasons things don't cost out, and even if it cost 10 more cents per unit, that adds up and sometimes budgets are really tight, as we've heard from countless people in the industry, always trying to get a single mold made here or there. Even Lego has limited the number of new pieces that can be made, and the designers are constantly talking about budget constraints. Speaking of, look at their Pick a Brick, that should give you an idea of what pieces are most expensive. Generic bricks, cheap (tons are made and they're easy to make). Printed generic pieces, a bit more. Printed unique molds like special heads, very expensive. Non generic fabric pieces, very expensive.
>>11033761Cloth goods for figures are becoming cheaper to produce in China due to the capacity spillover, China's domestic textile and appeal industries are very competitive in price right now because the global demand isn't growing that much.
>>11033761Why do you idiots think everything can be done by every company? Todd isn't even good at wired capes.
>>11034207Where does the OP indicate they're "good"? The fact that they can put wired capes at all out on 23 dollar figures is the surprising part.As far as "everything can be done by every company", McFarlane uses Chinese factories, as do most toy manufacturers. Anyone using the same factory as Todd (Bobby Vala has noted he uses at least one factory that Todd also does), could do the same thing since McFarlane isn't making the product within his own company, he's outsourcing to the factories who do it.
>>11034186This one doesn't use the same cheap material as the others. You can see it is done differently than the Robin OP picture.
>>11034192>Companies have literally told us it's more expensiveCreating tools and training the staff is a one time deal.Factories are set up to make toys in a very specific way, hence 4" GI Joes getting those "ankle rockers" first in the early 10s, before the more expensive Marvel Legends line did. Same way that GI Joes had diecast hips for so long, while Marvel figures generally had plastic hips. Same way 6" GI Joes and Overwatch figures had dropdown hips before their MLs did.Different factories are set up to have different tools available, which affects how the toys are produced. So a new factory will have newer/different tools available than an older factory, but the toys cost the same amount to produce (or less) in both factories.Obviously new toylines won't have the same amount of molds as an older toyline, so initial costs are actually pretty high, but that doesn't mean 6" GI Joe molds were more expensive than Marvel Legend or Black series molds. Everything still costs the same amount to produce, because that's how toy companies work when their toylines have the same price point. So if wired capes are being produced, they have to stay within the same budget as the rest of their toys, UNLESS its price point is higher or the rest of the wave has its budget cut.Again, go see how cheap Barbies and all their clothes are. IT's not actually that much more expensive and i someone pointed out it only sounds premium because it hadn't been used for normal toylines before.See also face printing, pinless joints, double jointed shoulders, and other dumb shit people thought was expensive until cheapshit kids toys started getting them (and in some cases, already had them a decade before).
>>11033814Compared to Hasbro and Mattel yeah. Not even close.
>>11033761Is this hope for more cloth-wired capes? The only thing plastic ones are good for is figure balance, but not for posability. Ive been wanting cloth for years too
>>11034192IN ADDITION>They'll usually cost in the thousands to low tens of thousands.It's still the largest part, as has been hammered by so many companies and why reuse is so prevalent. Some figures (i can mainly only speak about GI Joe) were never re-released because they lost or damaged the molds, and even multi-billion dollar companies didn't want to just remake a new mold despite the toylines selling in the millions.And costs are more than just low 10ks. Companies like Spero and MGR had lower goals for their KS because they made 1:18 figures, but bigger molds do cost more money, hence larger scale lines having a higher goal.Companies like 4H wanted to lie that cost are totally nearly the same for 1:18 and 1:12, yet the fact that so many toylines in 1:18 cost almost half as much as 1:12 lines proved 4H was speaking out their ass. Again, we can directly infer that from just the KS goal.>if your factory can't do clothBig if, because only a shitty tiny toy company wouldn't do it in house. Even Indian toy companies (used to be one of HAsbro's) make a variety of shit in house https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zypl-RDIc44pic is to give you an idea on how costly molds can be
>>this thread
>>11034969>See also face printing, pinless joints,To be fair, those would have been expensive at first, you only see them now on budget toys because in the case of the former the cost of printing has come down from when it was new, and in the case of the latter because companies figured out how to do it cheaply; you won't see import-style joints on budget figures any time soon.
>>11034981Mcfarlane seems to be mostly switching over because as Todd says "kids love the wire". But good luck getting a massive behemoth like Hasbro to quickly respond to what mcfarlane is doing and start doing wired capes on MLs. I wouldn't bet on it.
>>11035100Already existed years before collector lines used them.LEGO and Hasbro used prints in the 00s, not for faces, but it's the exact same tech. It's also a budget cutting feature, since it takes the place of multiple paint apps into a single application.And i mispoke about pinless. I meant seperate joints from the sculpt itself, like you see on Revoltechs, Figmas, and Figuarts. It was also considered a premium feature in the mid-00s, despite being adopted by McFarlane in the early 00s and again in the late 00s.I'll even bring up diecast, which has long been considered a premium feature and still tauted as such, despite Hot Wheels being 99¢ for decades while there have been decades of inflation and cost increases. See also https://is2.4chan.org/toy/1718613165799107.png which shows diecast is much more cheaper than plain old high pressure injected plastic.All this just shows most people have no idea what is costly or not. People just look at more expensive figures and think because certain features are on them, that it must cost more. It's a false perception.Again, Barbie shit proves that having clothes is budget>ib4 a shitty wire drives that price up by even 5%I can't imagine it being more expensive than bendy limbs, which are budget as fuck too, despite requiring molds.You'd make a better point trying to argue the microcloth used on the capes... if we were in 1994, when microfibers were a new thing. These capes would be considered costly and premium. Today? i get microfiber cloths with my fucking HDMI cords and USB C cables for no reason at all.There's nothing about the capes that points toward it being costly except for peoples ignorant perceptions.I mean, look at you, thinking that fucking cloth and wire being used by companies like Mafex would somehow bring those costs down for another company. Cloth and wire isn't a patented technology controlled by a single company or holding company like DVDs or SSDs.
>>11035136>Cloth and wire isn't a patented technology controlled by a single company or holding company like DVDs or SSDs, where costs are driven down by other companies licensing these technologies, where they spread the costs of development and production.just added something to clarify how shit actually works.
>>11035136>LEGO and Hasbro used prints in the 00s, not for faces, but it's the exact same tech.Yeah, but that was used on flat or very simple curved surfaces, not a complex sculpted face.>It's also a budget cutting feature, since it takes the place of multiple paint apps into a single application.Doubtful seeing as it requires complex equipment instead of, you know, a paintbrush. Though regardless of actual cost, there's no denying it looks better and has less chance of fuckup than traditionally painted faces.>I meant seperate joints from the sculpt itself, like you see on Revoltechs, Figmas, and Figuarts.To be fair, competently done separate/modular joints do cost more, as each joint has to be assembled separately, often from a different type of plastic to the main figure, necessitating separate molds, and often requiring metal rivets or pins. There's a reason they're the norm with more premium figures from Japan but haven't caught on with cheaper Western figures.
>>11035122I can see Hasbro doing wired capes but they'll charge you 100$ for it
>>11035370Its too late, people would call their bluff on it since they've already seen McFarlane has done it for less. If they were planning to ever do that, he shat in Hasbro's soup.
>>11035160oh look, retarded excuses because he can't believe he's not getting his money's worth.Cognitive dissonance working over time.This brick isn't made of extra special sand and clay. The letters didn't increase the cost to mold them onto the brick by 300%. It's the same normal molding you'll find on other bricks. It's just a brick that costs $30 because fuck you, pay up.Everything you find on McFarlane, Mattel, Hasbro, and other budget children toys that you would find on collector lines like Mezco, Mafex, Figuarts, and other collectors lines is because it's CHEAP to produce. When you see public companies like Hasbro, who expect profit year after year, include a new something that you'd find on a premium priced figure to their $23.99 children's action figures, it's because it cost them NOTHING to include it or actually was cheaper to produce. Companies like Hasbro will (and have) nickle and dime you for every extra quarter of a penny production costs increase by.So if penny pinching Hasbro, Mattel, etc can use so called "premium" features on their budget childrens toys, it's because it's not actually premium.If McFarlane can include it, it's because it's still within the normal profit margins a toy company expects to get from budget children toys. Businesses aren't charities and toys are cheaper to produce than you want to believe.
>>11035915This is a whole lot of words to say nothing in particular.Import joints continue to be more sophisticated than their domestic counterparts, which are just now starting to catch up by hiding pins by cruder methods. Yes, the pins are hidden, but the joints still don't look or feel anywhere near as good as their import counterparts. They're fine, for the price you pay at least, but pretending they're directly comparable to import joints is laughable.As for faceprinting, you'd have a point if it weren't for imports pioneering the process of applying prints to detailed facesculpts as opposed to just flat surfaces. Yes, other companies copied the technique later and it became ubiquitous (to the point of being THE way to do faces on mass market releases) but that's because new technology/applications of technology generally only becomes cheaper and more accessible with time. See 3D printing, which went from something only specialists would have to consumer-grade products that many hobbyists use in a very short time.
>>11035932>nothing but bullshityeah, that brick is totally made of super high quality clay found only on Jupiter under gigatons of atmosphere at its core and it was molded by hand through an ancient technique passed on through extra-dimensional beings whose cost to travel to this universe is measured in genocides. That totally justifies its price.Nothing but cope, because you don't want to believe plastic toys use extremely common plastics, tools, and techniques that have been around for decades, if not at least a century, without patents or extra associated costs. Nothing can be made any cheaper, because the technology (thus patents) existed a decade/a hundred years prior and in use just as long.Again, everything that you've said is premium is so cheap that budget children toys can use them without increasing their prices and for things like face printing, is actually a cost cutting technique that makes toys cheaper to make (and they don't even lower the price to use them, because toy companies exist to make profits. They're not charities).There's no ands ifs or buts about this, because it's literally the results that we're witnessing.None of the "premium" features budget children toys started using has ever correlated with an increase in prices. Prove me wrong.The fact is that the industry is making cuts everywhere, where they're actually taking AWAY features when they actually cost money. Shit like pic costs more just because it uses something that costs more money to have: MOLDS for extra accessories.After 2011, or there about, we started seeing price hikes and budgets for toylines being cut. Prices stabalized at $20 with the black series in 2014, which didn't get face printing until when.. 2015? 2016? I remember MLs it wasn't universal until around GotG2 came out in 2017. No price hikes until actual money was involved: global shipping crisis in 2021.And despite that basically being over, prices haven't gone back down, because fuck you.
Is this the McFarlane thread? No cape.
>>11036246You're getting awful hostile about this, aren't you? Why are you getting so mad about this? Why does the idea that more complicated, multi-material assemblies cost more than simpler ones upset you so much?>None of the "premium" features budget children toys started using has ever correlated with an increase in prices. Prove me wrong.I never said they did? Are you feeling OK? You seem to be seeing things that aren't there. My argument was that budget toys (yes, including Classified series, as good as it is) don't integrate features considered premium until they either become more cost-effective to use at mass retail (face-printing, once it was proved to be THE way to go for faces and the cost came down) or find cost-cutting ways to achieve similar (but not as good) results, such as Hasbro's pinless joints, which certainly look better than the pinned ones but aren't even remotely as nice to look at or manipulate as an import.Honestly I'd like to believe you've just misunderstood what was being said and were arguing with a point I was never making by mistake, because the alternative is you're either deliberately missing the point to be contrarian, or genuinely believe there's no difference between a $20 figure and a $60 one and that everything should cost $20, which is Starbucks Socialist tier delusion- "Why isn't everything freeeeee!??!".
>>11035915>He's still posting the brick copypasta Lmao subjectanon you've posted this a few times already.
>>11036263>because the alternative is you're either deliberately missing the point to be contrarian, or genuinely believe there's no difference between a $20 figure and a $60 one and that everything should cost $20, which is Starbucks Socialist tier delusion- "Why isn't everything freeeeee!??!".It's this.
>>11036329That's where I got it
>>11036263>still trying to push a non-patented technique that had already been a decade old as something costly because a collector toyline used it 13 years after budget children toys already used it>pretends it's something complicated, despite taking fewer steps than normal paint apps>why are you hostile to mebecause you're a retard who can't stop with his cognitive dissonance and your bullshit doesn't make any sense.It was already explained here >>11035136 and >>11035148 how shit actually works and you're proving how ignorant you are in technology/manufacturing.The only way what you're saying would work is if they shared a factory. Or hired outside factories to do it for them, but again, even fucking toy companies from India have the money to make everything in house. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zypl-RDIc44Only tiny toy companies like Acid Rain (ori?), 4H or Marauder Gun Runners need to share a toy factory, and would benefit from some other toy company investing in the tools for them to bring costs down, because they're making thousands to low-tens of thousands of figures.Bigger companies, even smaller ones like McFarlane, run their own factories and are selling millions of units every quarter. So they bring in brand new tools as easily as they bring in brand new molds, because they're making millions of dollar every quarter, if not billions. The scale of operations are there, unlike with 4H or Spero Toys.If you're not retarded, are you some shitty third party Transformers maker and think that's how Hasbro or Mattel operate too? But that's still a low IQ take....pic of age old toy manufacturing technique, but I'm sure there's a watchfag who'll pretend it's super duper complicated and just much better because they charge $20,000 for it, and just can't be compared at all to what budget children toys use, despite literally being the same shit.>but the QC worker is paid $100 an hour to inspect it!pretentious oof
>>11035932Just to remind you that Subjectcunt spent literal years shitting on imports for the face printing tech before doing a complete 180 on it once Hasbro and co adopted it.
>>11036407Becauae Hasbro does it better than import shit.
>>11036393I’ve been here since 2009, and remember you here even back then spouting the exact same paragraphs of endless combative meaningless bullshit. You’ve been shitting up this board and making any kind of normal discussion impossible for FIFTEEN YEARS. Learn how to behave like a normal human being or go play in traffic.
>>11036416Says more about you than him.
>>11036416>I don't like the tone of how you say 2+2=4, so you're wrongHah.Eat a dick, faggot>>11036407way to ignore the fact that Bandai used the low resolution print for the entirety of the face (nevermind the shitty underlying sculpt). Companies like DC Direct and Hasbro still continued using tampographs for the faces and used the low resolution print as a substitute for shading and other small details.And it's so shit, that even Bandai admitted it looks like shit, hence copying DC Direct's technique.A low resolution print by itself is ugly shit.
>>11036419No, it says everything about you. You’ve spent a decade and a half of your life being factually wrong and behaving like a complete and utter childish hysterical cunt on a Javanese shadow puppet sub-forum for adults who collect toys. I could dig out an old hard drive with screencaps of some of your greatest hits over the years like trying to claim a broken knee on a StarCraft figure you didn’t even own was actually a double joint, but I honestly can’t be fucked. If this board actually had a mod with basic pattern recognition skills you’d have been kicked to the curb years ago.
>>11036426kicked to the curb for..having a different opinion than you lmao
>>11036426How ironic, since you don't seem to have any of those skills yourself it seems.
>>11036429It's not even an opinion. The guy's a little bitch, who doesn't actually care about what's being discussed and is crying over me using meanie words to retards who have proven how ignorant they are.This entire argument stems from the fact that they think putting an 8 year old boy to sew wire into cloth on a plastic table costs more than a hundred pound steel mold that needs to survive a million cycles of having molten hot plastic pushed in at a couple thousand PSI.Oh, and that sewing wire into cloth? It's totally patented and needs to be licensed from collector companies, because it's amazing new technology.If i didn't know this board was full of retards, I'd swear they were trolling. Maybe at this point they are, because they're so butthurt and don't want to admit sewing wire into cloth isn't super duper expensive, hence trying to talk about other dumb shit to argue about.
>>11036393I literally said, the reason you see it on budget toys now is because the process has become more affordable and widely accepted NOW. As in, now, the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand and Twenty Four. It WAS a technique only used by imports (mostly Bandai) but as time has progressed and the method became proven to be economical to use (not to mention completely superior to traditional paint apps) it started filtering into other companies, and is no longer exclusively a premium feature. Unlike import-style jointing, which Western companies have yet to fully embrace and likely won't any time soon because, oh yeah, it's expensive.>>11036422I'm not seeing the problem here. It looks like Hermoine. Not sure about the hair but the face itself looks good, especially for the scale and for a likeness with limited reference material (seeing as Emma Watson isn't a child anymore).It really does seem like you get upset at the idea of more expensive toys having features that their cheaper counterparts lack. It's kinda pathetic.
>>11036479>affordable now>not affordable in the early 00s when they were in use by LEGO for budget childrens toys, a decade before bandai used it>b-b-b-but bandai centering it to be placed on uneven surface super duper expensive!sure is retard not understanding how retarded he sounds
>>11036479>It looks like Hermoine.No it doesn't
>>11036501Are you really comparing the level of detail face printing gets to Lego tampographs? Are you just pretending to be retarded or are you actually?
>>11036531>talked about multiple examples>focuses on one that is the same technology but because it isn't literally a face it doesn't countdrown in a pool already, retard.pic is from a budget childrens toy 3 or 4 years before Bandai copied Hasbro and LEGO technology, which obviously wasn't patented, thus paid the same amount as whatever Hasbro and LEGO did to make it, but for higher priced collector toys.You're like a brand whore defending that Supreme brick, pretending it's totally made of super special clay and molded from ancient techniques just because it costs 300x more than the shit you can buy at Home Depot. Nothing but cope.
>>11036540Then why did it taken until the mid 2010s for Hasbro and other companies to start using face printing? I remember comparing a Tony Stark head with traditional tampographs from the Civil War 3 pack, with the same mold from the Infinity Saga Iron Man Mk1/Tony Stark 2 pack that had face printing and it being a night and day difference. Why didn't Hasbro just use face printing the first go around?
>>11036556>why did no one want to use low res print on facesgee, i dunno... because it looks like shit?Only Bandai was stupid enough to use a low resolution print as the entirety of the paint apps for the face.It's fine for stuff like 1:18 bills, where you can excuse the low print, because anything else would look worse. Same with LEGO doing simplistic designs for simplistic figures, and you can tell it was budget cutting even in the early 00s (likely means the tech was developed in the 80s/90s since thats how long patents run or gets cheap enough), because LEGO decided to use that over tampographs at first.For faces though? It's absolutely shit and why no one thought about using it for faces. There's a reason why most magazines and comics switched to higher quality printing in the 90s and 00s... but somehow Bandai thought that low quality was fine, because WTF were they thinking?Anyway, DC Direct saw what Bandai did and came up with a better use for it.They still used tampographs and spray apps for the face, but used the low res print as the substitute for other paint apps: cheaper way of doing shading and highlights. This was in 2016, about a year later after Bandai showed off their SW figures with the godawful printed faces. 1 year is the fastest transition a toy company can make, because it takes that long to produce a figure. Then Hasbro followed suit... when? That's right, a later, because that's how long it takes for a toy company produce a brand new figure after seeing what DCD did with decades old tech.So since then, everyone copied DCD's superior technique. No one copied Bandai and bandai took 5 or 6 years to realize their mistake.Also, why did it take toy companies to realize that the high pressure injection molding they were using for 30 years could mold better detail? Toys from the 60s-early-90s were mushy as fuck. McFarlane took a chance in the mid-90s by sculpting in more detail and changed the industry. Ingenuity.
>>11036556Because it sucked until now
>>11036574>gee, i dunno... because it looks like shit?Which explains why it's now THE way to do faces on toys. Oh wait.
>>11036612Do you...not understand tech improves over time? And that imports used a shitty version of it?
>>11036614>Do you...not understand tech improves over time?Sure, which is why the process eventually became cheap enough for budget toys to use.>And that imports used a shitty version of it?They didn't though?
>>11036617>They didn't though?They did
>>11036612>retard who didn't read a thing and has never seen any of these figures everfor retards who don't have attention spans:Bandai puts a low res print on bare plastic face and called it a day from 2015 to 2020(? 2021?). That's it. Nothing else.vsDC Direct, Mattel, Hasbro, others, and /Bandai -today-/ puts on tampographs (usually eyes) and spray masks (lips, hair, masks, facepaint, etc) onto a face FIRST, then applies a low res.So on Bandai figures from ~2015 to 2020, since low resolution prints aren't actually solid, you can see the bare plastic showing in spotted areas in the eyes, mouth, teeth, and hair.It's shit and ugly. So shit and ugly, even Bandai stopped doing it this way and copied DC Direct's technique.I don't know why you want to defend this ugly shit, because even Bandai disagrees with you.>>11036614The tech has remained unchanged since probably the 90s. The only difference is its used differently.
>>11036650>probablySo you're saying you don't actually know and are just making assumptions?
>>11036655I doubt LEGO invented it, since they're not a tech company, so it was probably the 90s or even the 80s.If it was invented by LEGO, then the tech has remained unchanged since the 00s. No "probably." Refer to https://i.4cdn.org/toy/1718691631485717.jpg to see how shitty it looks. The symbol isn't a solid white because low res printing is shit, so the bare plastic is showing through, just like it did on Bandai's figures from ~2015 to 2020.Unchanged tech even today, hence smarter companies like DCD using it in more indistinct ways, for uses that a low pressure airbrushes would have been used for (shading, highlights, etc). A great idea, hence Bandai copying DCD.
>>11036688>I doubt>probably>IfSo you are just talking out of your ass and have no actual credible sources to back up your statements. Got it. I'll just disregard everything you've said up until this point then. Thanks.
>>11036689Anyone with eyes can see the tech has remained unchanged since the 00s, dude. No ands ifs or buts. You're not fooling anyone by trying to nitpick at my post. It's obvious you're butthurt that Bandai didn't invent the technology, produced shit results by using it poorly, and ended up copying DCD's technique for superior results, just like Hasbro, Mattel, McFarlane, and other companies did.Or are you butthurt from the earlier argument, when you were claiming sewing cloth and wire together is some special technology that costs a lot of money... despite untrained child labor being the main producer of that shit since the industrial age began in the 1700s? Even fucking China was still using kids for that shit into the 2010s for less of the cost of a single steel mold.
>>11036702That's a lot of words just to say you can't back up your statements at all. Do you think if you vomit up some overly long word salad post that people will just tldr it and assume you're right?
>>11036707You sure like stirring up shit for no reason.
>>11036712>no reason.Being butthurt over someone explaining that bandai didn't invent anything and did a poor job at it is a reason.Not a good reason, but a reason nonetheless.pic of shit he probably bought and has been feeling buyers remorse over, especially after Bandai improved by copying DCD.
>>11036712>Calling out subjectanon for his bullshit is stirring up shitfuck off, puss
>>11036716There's explaining. There's overexplaining. There's over overexplaining. Then there is sujectanon.
>>11036650>>11036688>>11036716Looks fine to me, and those are zoomed-in macro shots that are going to show up flaws you'll never see from regular viewing/posing.Also>Giving a flying fart about capeshit or Star Wars in 2024Apex lmao.
>>11036412Hasbro does literally nothing better than imports besides SHF which are a trainwreck at this point
Does Todd still have the Doom license? Dark Ages has a cape. Or did he lose the rights? Knowing Doomguy is now canonically gay & Jewish, Hasbro will probably try to grab it up. They might even make Doomicorn a licensed pony costume.
>>11036739Is this guy going on another rant over 3d print technology? This is like his fourth time this year.
>>11036764Bandai didn't think it was fine, which is why they stopped and copied Hasbro instead.
>>11037185>Bandai copied Hasbro>When Hasbro copied Bandai's faceprinting tech in the first placeSo they copied themselves? OK retard.
>>11037191Imports are struggling now and Hasbro has been doing the best Marvel and Star Wars out there.
>>11037194Marvel is dying and Star Wars is a rotting corpse of a franchise. Even if they were doing the best figures of those properties (and I strongly doubt that) it's not exactly much of an achievement.
>>11037191Bandai copied Hasbro first. Hasbro was using low res prints in the 00s and 2010s, years before Bandai.Just because they used it on a different part doesn't make them special, especially since no one wanted to copy what Bandai did there. And not even Hasbro is special, because they weren't the first to do it either.But that's besides the point, which is that Bandai agreed they did a piss poor job, hence copying the companies that actually made it look good.
>>11037206>Just because they used it on a different part doesn't make them special,It clearly does, seeing as it's now the standard for doing realistic faces on toys. Hasbro or DCC having to put extra paint under their faceprints to make up for the inferior plastic finish they have doesn't change that Bandai made realistic faces that actually look good on mass production figures viable.
>>11037209>standard>pretending Bandai was the first to use low res printing on toys>pretending everyone didn't ignore Bandai's technique>pretending everyone, including Bandai, didn't copy DCD's technique>pretending DCD's technique is bad despite everyone copying DCDIt's not fun arguing with retards who will only say that 2+2=5 and everyone one else, including Bandai, is wrong for saying 4.How many Bandai figures using their shitty technique did you buy to be this bad with your cognitive dissonance?
>>11037221>pretending Bandai was the first to use low res printing on toysThey were the first to use it on faces, and it worked.>pretending everyone didn't ignore Bandai's techniqueBudget-tier companies didn't have the equipment to use it on faces at the time.>pretending everyone, including Bandai, didn't copy DCD's techniqueThey didn't. DCD copied Bandai and put it on their shit figures.>pretending DCD's technique is bad despite everyone copying DCDEveryone copied Bandai. Including DCD.Also man, I need to get that Freddie. He looks damn good.
>>11037221What kind of headcanon is this where DCD did face printing first?
>>11037194Their new star wars molds are all regressing in articulation down to single jointed knees even
>>11037221>all this over tiny dots that macro photography exaggerates and you will barely notice, if at all in hand
>>11037225>they were the first to do it on facesSo? No one copied their technique.It's like saying whoever made the molded toy is special. No one knows who did it, because who gives a shit? They're not important.You know who is important and acknowleged for pioneering the toy industry? McFarlane, because they were the first toy company to produce non-mushy looking shit and all toys since then have become more detailed than ever.Everyone copied McFarlane, not unknown-unimportant-company, when it came to sculpting toys.Same deal with Bandai. No one gives a shit about what they did (apart from bitter fanboys who bought shit ugly toys), because it's shit.And again, even Bandai thinks it's shit, hence copying DCD. Everyone wants to forget about what Bandai did in 2015, because I don't see anyone clamoring for that shit.DCD's contribution is actually pioneering and set the trend, just like McFarlane in the 90s.pic of the ugly shit everyone but nutsos wants to forget about
>>11037259>So? No one copied their technique.Everyone did. Hence why printed faces are now the norm for realistic faces on toys.>B-B-BUT DCDCopied Bandai, and put their face-printing tech on badly made figures, and then died, whilst Bandai is still going.Cope and seethe.
>>11037264>everyone copied -unknown-company-by-sculpting toys>MCFarlane copied -unknown-company, and copied their way of molding on badly made figures, then died, whilst -unknown-company is still goingcool story, retrofag.No one gives a shit about ugly shit.Even Bandai recognized how shit is it, hence following the real pioneers like McFarlane and DCD.
>>11037270>No one gives a shit about ugly shit.But enough about McFarlane's pre-Fortnite stuff and everything DCD made ever.
>>11037272McFarlane has stuff that is more beautiful than any figure made after his Fortnite stuff
>>11037314Nice. Now let's see what other poses it can achieve.
>>11037224DC Collectibles and DCD Direct was removed by the then Warner Consumer Home Products VP as a way to fire people with higher salaries from the payroll, to pay down the debt AT&T incurred with the merger; the name is technically being used by McFarlane on, for example, the Super Powers lines (which again, they only get to use that art and logo because they currently have the DC license) so bankrupt is nowhere near the correct word.Licenses get moved all the time. This is why Image is now publishing Transformers after years of IDW doing it. And companies get sold or close down parts of their business all the time, like Saban selling MMPR to Hasbro; it doesn't mean Saban is or was 'bankrupt.'
>>11037584There seems to be an actual DC Direct place, since this guy, who has been there for almost 20 years and was put in charge of DCD at least 10 years ago, is still there.https://www.linkedin.com/in/jim-fletcher-7a7109ahttps://www.dc.com/talent/jim-fletcherAnd it's not like Toy Biz, where most of the head people just went to work for Marvel's licensing department or became corporate officers, since the DCD stuff is still using the same sculptors, who don't seem do any work for McFarlane Toys itself. Huge shame, since DCD uses some of the most talented sculptors in the industry.
>>11037592>https://www.dc.com/talent/jim-fletcherA lot of these DC pages are wrong, still. It's funny since they are going to set up a discord soon, I bet that will break even more pages.He's actually still at Warner Disco, you're correct. I'm surprised since his would be a hefty salary. I knew they totally gutted the DC Direct part of the line that did the TPBs and graphic novels, starting that even before AT&T took over and just making it worse with the two different change overs.But he's now Creative Director Warner Brothers Consumer Products, meaning he oversees ALL the licenses: PJs, coffee mugs, posters, etc.And he might be an 'emeritus' type employees where he works from home and doesn't work full time or something since it sounds from his own social that he's working on a bunch of his own crap: https://www.instagram.com/fletchergraffix/[spoiler]And yeah, your right about the sculptors, if we can reference non-plastic collectibles here![/spoiler]
>>11037599>the guy self reporting his employment that backs up his still working official corporate webpage is wrong because i said so!cool story, fuckwit.
