Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

Am disappointed that they didn't throw in a cheap mini tree and spring for some paint on the trailer interior.

Obvious purchase to make to go with this: One of those tiny strings of battery-powered mini-LED Christmas lights.

Emerje wrote:

Santimus Prime peed his pants. Nice...

-Kanrabat- wrote:

Emerje wrote:

So that's what the Pope meant when he said even nuns watch porn: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63405119

Listen Hasbro, post-Christmas, you should gather up all the leftovers (esp. from Entertainment Earth, lol) and send all of them to every convents you can mail to. You'll be helping solve the porn watching among them nuns and, you know, as penance for all the greedflation sins you dealt us for the last decade...

cloudballoon wrote:So that's what the Pope meant when he said even nuns watch porn: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63405119

I mean, they're surrounded by statues and paintings of a naked guy everywhere they look, they need to release that frustration somehow.

Emerje

Man, there are so many "G2 Hero Optimus Prime" vibes to this thing from the truck cab to the legs to even the shoulder joints. I wonder if the legs can swap around to give it the G2 Hero Optimus look? If it only had the robot mode windshield style instead of the traditional Optimus Prime windows. And maybe the very distinct head that G2 Hero Optimus Prime had. Hm ...


Transformers Generation 2 Sureshot Gallery




Transformers Generation 2 Sureshot Gallery

Seibertron wrote:Man, there are so many "G2 Hero Optimus Prime" vibes to this thing from the truck cab to the legs to even the shoulder joints. I wonder if the legs can swap around to give it the G2 Hero Optimus look? If it only had the robot mode windshield style instead of the traditional Optimus Prime windows. And maybe the very distinct head that G2 Hero Optimus Prime had.

I think it can be done, it would just require knee that can be bent the other way (might even be built into how its assembled) and then it's just as simple and spinning the torso around when transforming.

Emerje

Pre-ordered mine earlier. I agree with what others are saying about it. Definitely needs a Santa hat to complete the look. It's very clear his robot mode deco is supposed to be Optimus wearing a Santa suit. So why no hat?

Emerje wrote:So it's a licensed Volvo and that had no effect on the price? It's almost like the Collaborative line is expensive just for the sake of being expensive.

This isn't a collaboration though. Just a licensed leader class product, no different than leader class SS Jetfire or Megatron whch were both licenced by both paramount and their respective vehicle companies (or any deluxe class SS Bumblebee which is priced the same as a legacy deluxe).

william-james88 wrote:

Emerje wrote:So it's a licensed Volvo and that had no effect on the price? It's almost like the Collaborative line is expensive just for the sake of being expensive.

This isn't a collaboration though. Just a licensed leader class product, no different than leader class SS Jetfire or Megatron whch were both licenced by both paramount and their respective vehicle companies (or any deluxe class SS Bumblebee which is priced the same as a legacy deluxe).

I'm thankful for that because this here Canadian is tired to be overcharged for these "collab X-Over" toys.

william-james88 wrote:

Emerje wrote:So it's a licensed Volvo and that had no effect on the price? It's almost like the Collaborative line is expensive just for the sake of being expensive.

This isn't a collaboration though. Just a licensed leader class product, no different than leader class SS Jetfire or Megatron whch were both licenced by both paramount and their respective vehicle companies (or any deluxe class SS Bumblebee which is priced the same as a legacy deluxe).

My point is that people justify the higher price on Collaborative is due to all the licensing involved, but between this figure being standard retail and the Collab Tonka set being priced up despite having no license costs just proves the Collab-tax is real and not based on any extra costs at all. People have also claimed the reason movie toys don't cost more with licensed vehicles is because it's part of their movie contract which is why some get lookalikes instead, but this might upend that.

Emerje

To complicate things further, (not specific to this Santimus Prime) there's also the Exclusive Retailer tax, production volume vs designing cost tax,the target audience size tax and more that needs to be factored into whether a niche product (licensed or not, and whom is the license holder, I bet a Disney/Marvel/DC license cost far more than a car license per figure) is worth its MSRP.

I think most of us don't think of the production cost factor of a TF product that much, but each of us do have a range of acceptable "cost v price" ratio to gauge whether a product is worth it.

Emerje wrote:

william-james88 wrote:

Emerje wrote:So it's a licensed Volvo and that had no effect on the price? It's almost like the Collaborative line is expensive just for the sake of being expensive.

This isn't a collaboration though. Just a licensed leader class product, no different than leader class SS Jetfire or Megatron whch were both licenced by both paramount and their respective vehicle companies (or any deluxe class SS Bumblebee which is priced the same as a legacy deluxe).

My point is that people justify the higher price on Collaborative is due to all the licensing involved, but between this figure being standard retail and the Collab Tonka set being priced up despite having no license costs just proves the Collab-tax is real and not based on any extra costs at all. People have also claimed the reason movie toys don't cost more with licensed vehicles is because it's part of their movie contract which is why some get lookalikes instead, but this might upend that.

Emerje

Maybe Hasbro just hates us all?

I mean if you want a collaborative crossover ... just slap The Colonel's head on there and boom, instant KFC Prime.

Burn wrote:I mean if you want a collaborative crossover ... just slap The Colonel's head on there and boom, instant KFC Prime.

This needs to happen.

cloudballoon wrote:To complicate things further, (not specific to this Santimus Prime) there's also the Exclusive Retailer tax, production volume vs designing cost tax,the target audience size tax and more that needs to be factored into whether a niche product (licensed or not, and whom is the license holder, I bet a Disney/Marvel/DC license cost far more than a car license per figure) is worth its MSRP.

I think most of us don't think of the production cost factor of a TF product that much, but each of us do have a range of acceptable "cost v price" ratio to gauge whether a product is worth it.

I always take production costs into account when talking about prices. Exclusives typically don't cost more than their wide release counterpart, "exclusive" isn't the same as "limited" and can't be used interchangeably (Target will fill two pegs and an endcap with just one exclusive character because they're getting enough to cover other retailers that can't sell them). Target audience for Collaborative is expected to be large as that's the expectation when they're made. And Hasbro doesn't charge higher prices for licensed figures in the 6" lines, be it Marvel Legends, Star Wars Black, or G.I.Joe Classified they're all around the same price.

As far as design costs go they've already cut costs with the majority of figures be based on existing figures. Maverick is the only figure that's a wholly new mold, but that one was always going to get a second run for the sequel. They got away with JP93 being an entirely new mold because they offset it by packing it with another figure that just has a new head.

Emerje

Holiday Prime looks real nice, I am really digging him. I'm really excited for him

Emerje wrote:I always take production costs into account when talking about prices. Exclusives typically don't cost more than their wide release counterpart, "exclusive" isn't the same as "limited" and can't be used interchangeably (Target will fill two pegs and an endcap with just one exclusive character because they're getting enough to cover other retailers that can't sell them). Target audience for Collaborative is expected to be large as that's the expectation when they're made. And Hasbro doesn't charge higher prices for licensed figures in the 6" lines, be it Marvel Legends, Star Wars Black, or G.I.Joe Classified they're all around the same price.

As far as design costs go they've already cut costs with the majority of figures be based on existing figures. Maverick is the only figure that's a wholly new mold, but that one was always going to get a second run for the sequel. They got away with JP93 being an entirely new mold because they offset it by packing it with another figure that just has a new head.

Emerje

Pretty spot on. And with uniform pricing, some figures of the same wave will be better (more complicated transformation, bigger) and some worse, not each figure have the same design/production/plastic budget. Hasbro spread the total costs across a wave(s). So I don't hyper focus on a single figure's worth when it's part of a wave. Exclusives though, that's a different story.

Emerje wrote:

william-james88 wrote:

Emerje wrote:So it's a licensed Volvo and that had no effect on the price? It's almost like the Collaborative line is expensive just for the sake of being expensive.

This isn't a collaboration though. Just a licensed leader class product, no different than leader class SS Jetfire or Megatron whch were both licenced by both paramount and their respective vehicle companies (or any deluxe class SS Bumblebee which is priced the same as a legacy deluxe).

My point is that people justify the higher price on Collaborative is due to all the licensing involved, but between this figure being standard retail and the Collab Tonka set being priced up despite having no license costs just proves the Collab-tax is real and not based on any extra costs at all.

That's a false statement. Tonka is a seperate brand. As is GI-Joe and Transformers. Even though Hasbro owns the brand, each department charges one another for license use internally. That's common practice and you'll hear about it in any accounting course. So you are still comparing a licensed vehicle toy to a collaboration of two different IPs, which are two different kinds of costs. Same reason the GI Joe Megatron is so expensive, it's the Transformers department charging GI Joe for the right to use a Transformers character.

I know this sounds like a load of bull, but that's how companies made up of many brands do business internally. Each department/brand has its own targets, hence why they seperate them in the earnings call. And if they don't charge internal licensing, you can't declare it as part of your growth and licensing revenue. So in a way Chuck is right, the way Hasbro does business is just not advantageous for us the consumer price wise. But that's just part of the current capitalist landscape.

william-james88 wrote:

Emerje wrote:

william-james88 wrote:

Emerje wrote:So it's a licensed Volvo and that had no effect on the price? It's almost like the Collaborative line is expensive just for the sake of being expensive.

This isn't a collaboration though. Just a licensed leader class product, no different than leader class SS Jetfire or Megatron whch were both licenced by both paramount and their respective vehicle companies (or any deluxe class SS Bumblebee which is priced the same as a legacy deluxe).

My point is that people justify the higher price on Collaborative is due to all the licensing involved, but between this figure being standard retail and the Collab Tonka set being priced up despite having no license costs just proves the Collab-tax is real and not based on any extra costs at all.

That's a false statement. Tonka is a seperate brand. As is GI-Joe and Transformers. Even though Hasbro owns the brand, each department charges one another for license use internally. That's common practice and you'll hear about it in any accounting course. So you are still comparing a licensed vehicle toy to a collaboration of two different IPs, which are two different kinds of costs. Same reason the GI Joe Megatron is so expensive, it's the Transformers department charging GI Joe for the right to use a Transformers character.

I know this sounds like a load of bull, but that's how companies made up of many brands do business internally. Each department/brand has its own targets, hence why they seperate them in the earnings call. And if they don't charge internal licensing, you can't declare it as part of your growth and licensing revenue. So in a way Chuck is right, the way Hasbro does business is just not advantageous for us the consumer price wise. But that's just part of the current capitalist landscape.

Even if that's true (I'd really like to hear this from Hasbro themselves) that doesn't change my point. We've seen every combination licenses and only Collaborative up charges. Keep in mind that Hasbro has never once said "these figures cost more because of licensing", that's just fan speculation and it's entirely false. If a movie license doesn't effect the price of a figure and a vehicle license doesn't effect the price then why would the combination of the two cause a $20 markup?

Megatron (and Bumblebee) aren't expensive because of licensing he's expensive because he's a large figure that also comes with a G.I. Joe figure that Hasbro values at $20 on its own. That makes it a $70 bot which I think is a fair price for a figure that's smaller than Commander Jetfire and taller than a SS86 Dinobot by quite a bit.

Emerje

Even if you hold an executives face over a vat of acid, we'll never get a straight answer from Hasbro.