>>7975793>as >>7970822 noted the cost was staying under control until 2005. The price hike reflects the demand shrinking, when the PS2 rolled out it changed the world to where everyone was wanting to own gaming hardware so that money that went to kids toys was by majority going to games, as such the production shrank and the prices rose in reflection of thisI'm
>>7970822 and you're full of shit.
The reason for prices rising so high in the past 10+ years is mostly thanks to Chinese peasant revolts and the governments finally giving into their needs.
Costs spiraled out of control, which many companies, like Toy Biz, foresaw. Companies like Hasbro increased their prices... to a point. They've stopped at $20 for the past 5+ years, as have other companies. OTHER toys, in other scales, have also risen, but not as much.
Despite their prices not rising, they have improved in various ways. Better paint, more articulation, etc. So they've reached that equilibrium price point that toys had existed in the 90s and early 00s when they were $5-8.
ANYWAY, it's only because of demand that they've remained at $20. Costs rise every year, so that price point is stuck there for a reason.
If sales were as down as you claim, they would cheap out to retain that $20 price tag, like we saw early on when Hasbro attained the Marvel license to keep prices low.
It's easier for a consumer to take lesser quality than pay more for the same quality.
PS, retailers don't really order shit based on movies anymore. They got hit by bomb after bomb in the late 00s, like Avatar, PRince of Persia, Terminator, Pirates of the Depp, and the final straw was probably the Hobbit.
Even with MArvel movies, toy stores are heisitant, which is why Hasbro really doesn't label their Avenger/Black Panther/etc waves as movie lines. This probably has to do with the fact that a movie specific wave would need to be clearanced out faster and would also be viewed by the consumer as OLD once the movie is out of theaters.
