>>8287654I could imagine the only obstacles would be the usual "copyright" BS which may prevent people to use face shapes which would closely resemble Barbie or any very specific articulation design, other than that I think it would be stupid for either Mattel or Hasbro to try suing for something like "patented" body shapes or even the doll scale.
I have seen knockoffs with decent designs and variety, the only problem with them is quality material, most of the time it is some thinner rigid plastic, no head anchor and bad quality hair, the later is easily fixable since nylon fiber hair for reroot can be bought, other than that is up to the imagination of any good designer.
If it were up to me I would use at least the fashionista articulation as standard or even draw inspiration from Japanese BJDs, the thing about dolls with different vocations and stuff is a very good idea all things considered, different body shapes is good enough as long as it doesn't go overboard with diversity, same with skin colors, and of course, no molded undies, in general I think a very playable doll would trump the million ideas from the other toy manufacturers.
If we talk about marketing? well, the internet is a thing and posts like this
>>8285371 >>8285429 are something to consider, no matter how deep in the digital age we are, kids like to play with physical toys, collectors like to take pictures and customize their dolls, creepers gonna creep and make doll pr0n, etc.
