>>7239358Are you retarded?
Here's the post I'm replying to
>>7238393>The difference is that one is a low quality toy worth about 10 bucks ( but Hasbro is gonna charge you 20) He makes a claim they should only cost $10, or be worth $10 (lol wholesale might not even be that low, especially with the way some stores charge over MSRP), yet there's nothing in the market to back his idiotic claim.
And here you are arguing that because they reuse molds, do mostly retools... that they should be $10? WUT?
But i guess you want to move your goalpost, because even you realize how retarded your reasoning is.
>The high-end market exists for a reason.no one is arguing this
Yep, Hasbro does make their toys for kids, but again, they're basically the baseline on what you should expect to get. They're not the greatest, but they're still good enough and sometimes look better than higher end lines. See their Star Wars figures, Thanos, Nebula, etc etc etc.
>>7239371>>7239383Bandai still made them and they still cost way too fucking much. Also shows how much licensing is costing them, because their sentai shit that's as articulated sells for $5 less and has better paint apps. Even then, that's way overpriced compared. The vast majority of their mass market crap? unarticulated crap that's also way too fucking expensive.
So again
>You'll be hardpressed to name any that cost $20 or less, especially since the closest competitors like Mattel and Bandai (their mass market toys) cheap out hugely with paint and articulation. 