>>8274922>Everyone knows that's bullshit. Why is it bullshit? Guys like this
>>8274910 are basically saying that the sculpt quality is bad thus not a Figuarts clone, despite the fact that it's still basically a clone.
>>8274922Again, i posted my own example and considering how it's physically made, they're not literally identical duplicates and the dust specks are smaller than $20 microprinting.
>What is he making up exactly? I already explained it, but let's focus on your justifications that you're trying to make up. How are DCC's Figuarts clones not clones and how did they manage to price them for ~$30 less?
How is Saitama's face even relevant to this discussion? IS it just you trying to shit on everything else to say that makes your product that much better? Despite the fact that other figures from McFarlane's lines don't use spray apps like that for cleaner results?
>Based on what? The inane ramblings of a 43 year old loser his stays up all night shitting up a Japanese basket weaving forum's toy subreddit?What a great fallacy. So because you don't like what I say, that means that products like the ones I've posted don't exist and don't cost much much more than the equivalent products while having significant lesser value (size, articulation, paint, engineering, etc).
>And came out years after 2011. That's from Marvel Disk Wars a show that didn't air until 2014. See this is the lying. I was mistaken. IT actually came out in 2013. The figures were $9 at that point. Here's a 2014 figure. I don't think they rose above $10 when the line was finally killed in 2015... 2016?
