>>9797266>If expensive toys have a feature and cheap ones don't then yeahNot really.
remember the cheapo face stickers bandai was using? And how fast other companies started using it, because they had already been using it for at least a decade before? How about when people denied it was poorer quality, despite being exactly the same technology, just used differently?
Nothing but shitty rationalizations because poorfags need to cope that it MUST be expensive cuz expensive toy uses it
>I mean if you were to make a figure entirely out of unpainted diecastHot Wheels are almost completely painted though and so are most diecast toys.
>have a completely separate set of molds made for it, adding diecast parts to a figure is going to raise the price.It doesnt, because a mold would needed to have been created anyway. No doubt, the same amount of molds are created whether it was all in plastic or just 90% was plastic.
A giant company like Bandai already has the capabiilties to make it, same as Mattel or Hasbro, so they're not investing in any new equipment to do it. And smaller companies would likely outsource and still not cost more than using high pressure injection molding, because that's how cheap diecast molding is and how expensive plastic molding is.
>If a figure has paint seeping into its joints and making them creaky or worse still at risk of breaking then it's low quality.A company just using bare plastic isn't paying anything, they're just basically skipping a step and doesnt need to put any quality control into that. Whereas a company using weathering, like dry brushing or paint wipes, is paying more for a HIGHER END FEATURE (especially in this day and age) and just has ok to great quality control.
Nevermind there's high end toys that get stuck joints anyway, because they used paint, like pic.
So this entire point isn't about which is higher quality, but rather who used paint and who didn't.
