>>6333917Heh, sorry, was away so missed this reply.
>Forbes saying that Hasbro is trying to "win back" fans with 40th anniversary figures isn't proof? The article (which is an opinion piece btw) says they're trying to win back "collectors." Though they're always the most vocal (like yourself), in terms of actual market share collectors are a tiny proportion of sales. Of course Hasbro is going to try and do more to generate sales, that's what businesses do, but weaker sales among collectors is easily offset by strong general market sales.
>How many of those waves have you seen in stores?Actually saw all of them (though never a Revan, just his wave, dangit). And again, back to my main point, if the line were "killed" there wouldn't be any successor waves at all.
>FA and RO figures clogging pegsBut I thought TFA killed the line! How could there be RO figures... ;)
>Do you work for Disney anon? Or Hasbro? Why is Hasbro trying to win back fans with 40th?No to both, but I do own considerable stock in both and I keep tabs on my investments. And again, like any good business Hasbro is looking to generate more sales. As you're so fond of googling Forbes articles, google what I've said about Hasbro's earnings and you'll see it's true.
>autism >fag Really don't see how anything I said warrants such name-calling. I didn't personally attack you in any way, simply provided facts that were counter to what you were claiming. If this is how you argue then I don't really see the point of replying further to you.
>>6333921>contributor articleForbes runs random articles on anything, being hosted on Forbes doesn't means it's true. The contributor of this article isn't a market analyst and is only offering opinions. Note he starts his third paragraph with "the toys sold well nonetheless."
>>6333931>second line>"anecdotal evidence"Again, I never said Hasbro was doing things perfect. But again, anecdotes of doom aren't being reflected in Hasbro's earnings.
