>>6443756>they're good figures, and pretty great at the $12-$20 price point they sat atI really hate statements like this, especially the way you're using it, because it implies that cutting away the sculpt and giving figures weird proportions to be more poseable costs more money to produce.
It doesn't.
What costs money are how many pieces the figure is made out of, how it's assembled, the amount of paint apps that are used, how they're applied and general QC (plus type of plastic used).
The range of motion has no real cost, because that's the same step taken when its being sculpted and the joints/articulation being laid out. There is no extra step that adds to the cost.
So for actual costs, McFarlane put in a shit ton of value in their 2008-2012 toys. There really are no other toys that really matched his output except for statueshit, Hot Toys (their dolls and snap kits), 3a (and i guess Mezco with their One:12 line), and PAKs (only their paint, but they had some really really shit applications, but that was still expensive).
The vast majority of toys priced over what you see in retail are hugely overpriced. The diminishing returns for imports (Japanese/HK/Chinese) and high end brands like 3a and Mezco's stuff is crazy high, since feature per feature the costs do not add up. They charge a premium because they can and thats the only reason their figures cost so much.
And i dont disagree with a lot you said. i know how limited the figures are, but to call them useless like you did? You might as well be telling me you're a veteran from vietnam and need money to fight the aliens.
