[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/toy/ - Toys

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: IMG_2085.jpg (39 KB, 415x500)
39 KB
39 KB JPG
>super articulated 3.75 figures in the late 2000s/early 2010s
This is where toys peaked
>>
>>11065186
5 inches is the sweet spot for toys but everyone refuses to go there.
>>
>>11065240
I like 5 inch toys too but youre right that is a hot take. 90s were a great time for toys along side the 2000s and early 2010s
>>
I miss 3.75. I wish every IP I liked was in that scale and super articulated. Fuck reaction.
I'd army build the shit out of Joe, SW, MOTU, and any other shit out there if they also gave us cool vehicles and some playsets.
>>
>>11065240
some jap figures still have that scale
>>
>>11065240
Nah. 1/15 is weird enough for scaling purposes. It's also like 75% more volume per figure vs 1/18 even before He-Man/TMNT stretched proportions, so if you're going for a collection of a lot of characters, it's going to take a lot more space. If you only want a few characters, there's usually much better options. And if you're wanting a toy that's actually play-worthy, no reason for size class/scale to even be a factor.
>>
>>11065186
Hey, I recognize that base. Is that from the Iron Man two toyline? I loved those drones.
>>
>>11065606
Yeah its crimson dynamo from the iron man 2 toyline
>>
>>11065614
It’s crazy how I can remember that but will forgot what I’m doing mid-sentence. The figure is gone, still have the base though. Every Hasbro figure came with a base, a variety of weapons/accessories, and a little extra back then; all for the price of around eight or ten USD. We had no idea how good we had it.
>>
>>11065637
>Every Hasbro figure came with a base, a variety of weapons/accessories, and a little extra back then; all for the price of around eight or ten USD. We had no idea how good we had it.
Thats what i meant when i said thats when toys peaked. Now everythings 25$ for some oversized figure that doesnt come with as many accessories as youd usually get from these smaller figures. I mean i understand inflation to a point but its ridiculous how far toys have gone from where they were 15 years ago
>>
>>11065648
>>11065637
Hasbro saw Japan selling their figures for $50 and up and said "hey, let's try that too!"
>>
The 3.75 inch marvel figures released around this time were peak. Had Op's figure, every X men, a couple iron men etc. Must've been how Gen X'ers felt about GI Joe's back in the day
>>
>>11065648
The Vintage Collection isn't doing much better. It's been a while since I last bought something, but they are really stingy with the accessories, have somehow gotten worse with articulation and the details (removable helmets, gun sizes and holsters), and lame packaging.
>>
File: SDCC12GIJ.jpg (323 KB, 800x600)
323 KB
323 KB JPG
>>11065240
Don't even lie.
While paint applications can be more complex and you can get more vehicles/playstets, it's still too large of a scale if you want to buy massive amount of army buildable figures.
1:18 allows you to make even bigger vehicles/playsets, more of them, AND cheaper.

1:18 is the superior scale whose only real drawback is paint is harder to do at that scale. Figures can be just as sharply sculpted and be super articulated though. Same as 1:12.

Pic is something you can do in your living room and still be able to use it as a living room, because 1:18 is the sweet spot in ownership, detail, and playability.
Smaller scales can do this, but paint starts to look bad, if there is any paint, and articulation takes a hit too, unless you want to put up with really fragile toys.
>>
>>11065859
I'll compromise and say 4.5
>>
>>11065606
That's not a drone. It's Crimson Dynamo, who is an ultra corrupt KGB officer who stole a Russian inventor's armor design so he could fuck shit up in power armor after he got jealous of Iron Man for just existing....
>>
>>11065186
>1/18
>>
>>11065955
I know, I was asking if it was from the same toyline as this.
>>
File: IMG_7618.png (554 KB, 750x553)
554 KB
554 KB PNG
>>11065956
Seethe peasant
>>
>>11065971
Yea, same line. I got a few of the army drones, Iron Man, War Machine and a Nick Fury on a G.I. Joe body from that line. Not the best figures in the world, but still fun. The paint on the Iron Man I got is just a glowing cherry red and looks real nice.

>>11065859
Vehicles and Playsets are both a blessing and a curse. While they're awesome and fun and I love having them, they take up WAY more space then a straight 1:12 figure collection would. For 1:18 you kinda need the Playsets and Vehicles for a display to look good, you don't really need that for 1:12 cause the figures themselves take up more of the focus. That said, I do love me some big buildings and awesome vehicles.

>>11066009
>Scale war loser
>Only thinks there's two scales
>Too poor to buy multiple scales

Real men buy toys of all sizes.
>>
>>11065186
I wouldn't call that super-articulated. Doesn't even have double elbows.
>>11065859
1:18 has a lot of drawbacks. If you AREN'T buying shit-tonnes of figures for army building, or you don't buy vehicles/playsets, their shelf presence is somewhat limited by their tiny size. A Detolf works for 1:12 figures, not so much for 1:18. And if you do go the vehicles/army building route, you negate one of the advantages of 1:18, which is space conservation.
Also, 1:18 really only works for series with less of an individual character focus. If you just want a good poseable Darth Vader, you're better off going 1:12 and getting a better overall figure out of it. At regular human scale, there's limits to how much articulation you can work in without the toy either looking wonky or being fragile, and as you mentioned paint details often get messy at such a small scale. You CAN get decently poseable figures that look good at 1:18 but 1:12 will always be able to fit more in by virtue of their larger size.
Finally there's the fact 1:18 just isn't that popular anymore. Most companies have switched to 1:12, with a lot of the few remaining 1:18 lines being OC brands. Not that there's anything wrong with original properties, of course, but if you're a fan of a license and want toys of it you're probably gonna go 1:12.
I like 1:18. The JoyToy 40K line is one of the main lines I'm collecting these days, though that's a bit of a cheat as their Space Marines bypass the problems of 1:18 by being considerably bigger than an average human and thus having more room for articulation. But there are many reasons someone might prefer 1:12.
>>11066441 has the right idea though. Scale-warring is dumb.
>>
>>11066510
>Finally there's the fact 1:18 just isn't that popular anymore.

I wouldn't go that far, as it's lack of shelf presence would probably have more to do with the fact that the cost to produce a highly articulated 1:18 figure is starkly similar to a comparatively articulated 1:12 figure, but the perceived market value of the two is not. Joe Schmo parent will feel they get a better deal buying a 25ish dollar 1:12 figure then they would getting a 15ish dollar 1:18 toy despite them costing almost the same to make. Seeing as shelf space between the two scales would also be fairly similar, toy companies would rather pump out the bigger figure for better margins to get the most profit per figure. And without massive amounts of vehicles and playsets to bolster a line, which is what helped sell ARAH back in the day, 1:18 isn't as attractive to the general market.

But there is a very strong presence in the collector sphere for 1:18 stuff. There's multiple niche lines that can sell figures for 30-60+ a pop and still sell them out. 1:18 is still a popular line with collectors, and they're willing to pay almost crazy prices for some of these figures.

Hell, I have at least a half dozen Laurel variants already and those things are at minimum $100 bucks a pop. There is a demand for 1:18 stuff, it's just not one most major toy companies care to take advantage of.
>>
>>11065956
>furry opinion
Rejected. Go back.
>>
File: diorama shelves gi joe.jpg (414 KB, 1600x1200)
414 KB
414 KB JPG
>>11066441
>you don't really need that for 1:12 cause the figures themselves take up more of the focus
I disagree, because almost everyone just wants to fill space, creating clusterfucks, so of course something bigger will stand out a little more. With 1:18, it's easy to go even more overboard.
If 1:12 were easier to make dioramas for (playsets and background pieces are super abundant for 1:18), you'd also see more people doing it, instead of putting the focus on the figure. It's visually more interesting and tells a story about the character themselves vs wood or white wall backgrounds that are so common for 1:12 displays.
It's why those Little Armory sets are so popular here for 1:12 fans, because it's one of the few ways to get 1:12 backgrounds.

For 1:18, the vehicles themselves are background pieces if you want them to be. It's a cheap way to tell a story with your figures and can be irresistible to want to play with the toys to further that story and actually have space to tell it, since 1:18 isn't that big. So you have that vehicle or two on the same shelf and it's exciting to look at.
If you try to make 1:12 do something interesting, you basically take up half the shelf making 2 characters look like they're in a fight.

And Detolfs only look good with 1/6 figures. With 1/12, you're leaving 2/3rds of the shelf looking empty, because there's so much vertical space

>>11066811
Margins on 1:18 figures are bigger, thanks to their lower price point. 1:12 stayed $19.99 for almost a decade, despite costs rising, because they feared breaking the $20 point. After breaking that price point, they're still cautious about it. Whereas 1:18 has freely increased whenever and nary a complaint, because they were still cheap.
Anyway, point of the matter is that it's not profit margins the company cares about, it's that increase in revenue. Hence other companies still charging $10 for 1:18. Two packs for 1:18 are common for that extra revenue btw.
>>
>>11066866
Siiiiiiick
>>
File: PXL_20230325_063307012.jpg (2.81 MB, 4080x3072)
2.81 MB
2.81 MB JPG
I like making sets, and the 1:12 ones are a lot of effort for way less.
>>
>>11066866
This is quite impressive anon. Wow man.
>>
>>11066873
Post your whole set up so we can see
>>
File: PXL_20231121_072011276.jpg (3.39 MB, 4080x3072)
3.39 MB
3.39 MB JPG
>>11069494
>>
>>11069523
Putting a highway through your city is bad urban planning. Soon your toys will be clamoring for robust public transit, and that big concrete eyesore will have to be bulldozed. Sorry anon, but you just torpedoed your whole political career.
>>
File: 1000010704.jpg (143 KB, 683x1000)
143 KB
143 KB JPG
Pic related is when marvel toys peaked
>>
Hasbro went back to Legends just to raise the prices to stupid new heights after people got hooked. We don't even have the Thanos soldiers from IW and the Chitauri in Legends series.



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.