Discussion in 'Transformers Toy Discussion' started by BigRC83, Aug 7, 2008.
Is it because to be cost efficient or another different reason?
didn't they dedicate die cast to their titanium line? i dunno, i never liked any of the titanium tfs anyway.
It's a shame, take the classic line, add die cast to the toys, the result is the most awesome line since G1.
Probably cost efficient, except in cases like where the line IS supposed to have some die-cast.
Yeah, mostly cost efficiency due to weight I think?
Also, I believe die-cast parts shrink as the cool from the molds, meaning it's (possibly?) costlier to have to design slightly larger molds for any die-cast components. That's something I should've asked about at Botcon. ;_;
Because it's a lost art.
That, and less durability. Imagine how kids play with their toys. They don't transform them once and then pose them on a shelf. They BANG THEM against each other during their plays. TAKE THIS, MEGATRON! GAH!
Now imagine that with diecast. How long will the paint last?
Considering how easy paint already scratches off plastic parts, I'm glad that most toys these days don't use diecast.
Less durability? Is all the contrary man. I have several old japanese robots from '72 to '78 and they are intact. I don't give a fu*k about the security on the toys.
It's probably a safety thing.
The "size class" of a toy is based on WEIGHT. Every single "deluxe" figure would then cost you another $7 because it would be a "voyager".
Diecast is expensive and leaves you very limited in what you can do. Look at Binaltech vs. Alternators, and how BT toys were great to display but Alternators were the ones to pose, move around, etc.
I would say mainly cost. But I would think the other reason is stability. Back in the day when TFs were bricks with little articulation stability and posability wasn’t a problem. Now, with figures being as articulated as they are, it’ll be hard to keep them upright if certain parts are heavy. Of course, Takara can try to engineer it in a way to compensate the heaviness but that’s more engineering. Some of the Titaniums had this problem. It’s hard to keep the arms up. You can even take BTs versus Alts as examples. Some of the BTs are harder to get into certain poses versus Alts because of the heavier metal parts.
Metal has less tolerance for bending and flexing than plastic does. Also, plastic shows sculpted detail better than metal, especially when paint is applied. Less coats needed on plastic.
Paint also bonds to plastic better than die-cast metal.
What security? You mean toy safety? These toys are made for children, you know.
Right, anyway I mean use the die cast like in G1, partially not totally on the toys. Is not bad and is much better imo.
And yes, this toys are for childrens, and I don't care!!
Shortpacked! webcomic by David Willis -- Toys Are Serious Business
So what part of the explanations people have given do you not understand/not agree with? They all seem perfectly reasonable to me.
Oh, and I really hope we don't get more diecast in TFs. I don't want to pay Voyager money for Deluxe-size figures.
Edit ~ Damnit, I should have remembered and linked to that Shortpacked! strip.
The plastics they have now are pretty amazing. Lots of toughness and elasticity to create those pop away joints.
I'm glad they use plastics, as it makes the G1's unique. I just think they need to use better paints and dies.
They tried that, they were called Titaniums, they sucked.
I'm perfectly happy with my all plastic deluxes, as are Hasbro and the millions of kids who buy them.
Difference in opinion and preference but I prefer not to have a mixture of diecast and plastic due to different shade of colors between the plastic and diecast.
Try to think in Transformers Binaltech.
You mean that heavier, more expensive version of Alternators that didn't pose as well because they were too heavy? Yeah, I passed on those as well.
Separate names with a comma.