Shockwave7 wrote:They're wasting time making Autobot G1 car Masterpieces and repaints of the Seeker jet mold, when they SHOULD be doing MP Shockwave!
MaverickPrime wrote:Are there any notable differences between Hasbro's and Takara's versions?
Burn wrote:Agamemnon wrote:Let's get back to talking about Burn's mammoth snout flopping...
Well I am Australian. It's kinda what we're known for.
Cobotron wrote:MaverickPrime wrote:Are there any notable differences between Hasbro's and Takara's versions?
No shoulder canons/rocket launchers?
I actually find them to be cumbersome anyway.
Free advertising for Crazy Sammy's Used Car Emporium!Black Bumblebee wrote:The only thing I can figure is that the the North American licensing fees for the automobile companies must be much higher than in Japan. And that's a shame, as I see it as free advertising.
Burn wrote:Agamemnon wrote:Let's get back to talking about Burn's mammoth snout flopping...
Well I am Australian. It's kinda what we're known for.
fenrir72 wrote:@ the mods or anybody who is in the know. How is it that Australia TRU gets dibs on certain Materpieces while the US does not?
Iirc MP-02, MP-24 and the upcoming Bluestreak. Is it because Australia is in Asia or whatever is the reason?
william-james88 wrote:But then I realized something. License agreements are national/regional, not global (we know this from the alternators line when Honda Japan would allow stuff Honda USA wouldnt and thus the hasbro release was different from Takara's). So, a license could (and probably does) cost more for Hasbro than Takara. Which explains why the licensed MP cars cost so much compared to Hasbro's MP 10, Grimlock and Soundwave which were cheaper than Takara's and didnt need a license from a manufacturer outside of Hasbro.
The fact that Starscream doesnt need a license would explain why he will cost the same as this Bluestreak MP.
welcometothedarksyde wrote:william-james88 wrote:But then I realized something. License agreements are national/regional, not global (we know this from the alternators line when Honda Japan would allow stuff Honda USA wouldnt and thus the hasbro release was different from Takara's). So, a license could (and probably does) cost more for Hasbro than Takara. Which explains why the licensed MP cars cost so much compared to Hasbro's MP 10, Grimlock and Soundwave which were cheaper than Takara's and didnt need a license from a manufacturer outside of Hasbro.
The fact that Starscream doesnt need a license would explain why he will cost the same as this Bluestreak MP.
You know the situation is more complex still. If you look at the MP seeker mold it is easily the most accurate replica of any aircraft from the Transformers line ever. Yet none of them are licensed by Boeing Defense. Meanwhile every single Movie Starscream toy, no matter how abstract of an F-22A Raptor it was, they were licensed by Lockheed Martin.
So either Lockheed is a stickler for licensing, or airplane Transformers don't need to be licensed at all. Which would make sense. Aircraft aren't consumer items and as such don't really have a brand/image to keep.
william-james88 wrote:welcometothedarksyde wrote:william-james88 wrote:But then I realized something. License agreements are national/regional, not global (we know this from the alternators line when Honda Japan would allow stuff Honda USA wouldnt and thus the hasbro release was different from Takara's). So, a license could (and probably does) cost more for Hasbro than Takara. Which explains why the licensed MP cars cost so much compared to Hasbro's MP 10, Grimlock and Soundwave which were cheaper than Takara's and didnt need a license from a manufacturer outside of Hasbro.
The fact that Starscream doesnt need a license would explain why he will cost the same as this Bluestreak MP.
You know the situation is more complex still. If you look at the MP seeker mold it is easily the most accurate replica of any aircraft from the Transformers line ever. Yet none of them are licensed by Boeing Defense. Meanwhile every single Movie Starscream toy, no matter how abstract of an F-22A Raptor it was, they were licensed by Lockheed Martin.
So either Lockheed is a stickler for licensing, or airplane Transformers don't need to be licensed at all. Which would make sense. Aircraft aren't consumer items and as such don't really have a brand/image to keep.
Yeah, its strange. And plus, last years AOE toys had licensed Lambourghini and Bugatti toys and they cost the same as every other toy.
welcometothedarksyde wrote:
That was the case for all the movies, and you're right. All toys cost the same regardless of license or not. My best guess is that there was some sort of deal with the owners of the license for product placement in the movie.
william-james88 wrote:welcometothedarksyde wrote:
That was the case for all the movies, and you're right. All toys cost the same regardless of license or not. My best guess is that there was some sort of deal with the owners of the license for product placement in the movie.
Part of me highly doubts Bugatti would care for advertising. They don't even have dealerships worldwide and only target a specific niche clientele (millionaires). I feel this is more Bay wanting the coolest cars in his film than Bugatti reaching out to want some coverage.
Return to Transformers Toys Discussion
Registered users: Bing [Bot], Glyph, Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot], Roadbuster, Yahoo [Bot]