>>10469248>toys from a decade ago weren't overpriced and a 80 year old company making collector toys is still brand new to the game so you should forgive them for poorly made toyslol
Fuckwits like yourself were defending that trash too, especially when companies like children's toy company Hasbro who maek budget toys were doing a better job. You guys sound like shills because as soon as those figures are no longer being sold in stores, you finally admit to all the flaws people were criticizing
And you're only proving my point with that Hulk. It looks better because they used another sculptor. Molding technology hasn't changed since at least the 80s. Paint technology hasn't changed since at least the 00s. All companies are doing are using the same techniques they've been using for decades
Today they're just being cheaper about it. They've been cutting budgets for the past 5 years
Here's a McFarlane toy from 2013. Notice the billions of paint apps that makes the pirate look like he's been stealing clothes from rich people. Filigree, silk, embossing, buttons everywhere, and other fancy shit from the 1700s. You can't find any company matching this level of paint today under $100. And just in case you didn't know, this was after the Halo line, where McFarlane was giving their toys around 40poa. This figure only has around 25PoA, a downgrade, because it wasn't a big seller like Halo was at its height
>>10469621>comparing $10 toy to $60 toyHow disingenuous. It's after $50 you're not really seeing better features/QC for your dollar.
But you're not that far off. People buy $20-25 children toys because those toys are 90% to being as well painted and/or as well articulated as $70 toys. There may be a 5% reduction in range of motion, it may not have relaxed alt hands, maybe someone needs to search 2 seconds longer to find a Spiderman that isn't missing an eye paint app, but the toy otherwise may be better sculpted and does the poses 99% of people want the toy to do