>>9225998And that's how we ended up with this issue in the first place. Too many ignorant people equate size to value. I see it in Transformers discussion all the time. People will bitch about a small character like Bumblebee being in the $20 price point. His complexity/engineering will match or exceed his larger brothers, but because he's smaller people think he should cost less.
The reason super articulated 3.75" figures went out of style is because they cost roughly as much to make as 6 inch figures. It's also why McFarlane went 7" for their recent stuff. Todd said he felt the larger size would make his figures stand out and seem like a better value, despite not actually costing more to produce.
Will a 6" monster cost less to produce than an 8" one? From using less plastic, yes. But the difference in cost will be so marginal it may not even allow for an extra accessory or paint app because the real cost of those figures is in the one-time use tooling.
