Cyberverse - are the toys getting too simple or are people getting dumber? [Archive] - Ozformers Transformers Club of Australia (otca.com.au)

GoktimusPrime

6th August 2018, 10:25 PM

Would it be an over-exaggeration to say this is the worst Transformer main line ever? Especially considering we're in 2018?

Possibly.

The other main contender would be Animorphs. Animorphs are worse in terms of just not even really being Transformers, but in terms of design and engineering I'd say that they are better than these Cyberverse toys... maaaaaybe. On one hand they do have fully articulated rob--, human modes that are unhindered by gimmicks (except for Cassie/Wolf and Rachel/Lion's human heads). But on the other hand, the Cyberverse toys don't rely on detachable accessories to form the alt modes. e.g. if you lose Marco/Gorilla's gorilla hands then you can't fully transform him to beast mode. The Cyberverse Warriors have no accessories at all, so there's literally nothing to lose. Yeah, Cyberverse Starscream's jet mode is awful, but he will always be able to transform into it. In this regard he's arguably better than the G1 Seekers because they're nothing more than "cigars" that rely heavily on detachable accessories. The secondary market is full of "cigar" Seekers missing their wings, horizontal stabilisers, vertical stabilisers, landing gear, fists etc.

But yeah, by 2018 standards this toy is inexcusably excremental.

FatalityPitt

7th August 2018, 10:25 PM

In this regard he's arguably better than the G1 Seekers because they're nothing more than "cigars" that rely heavily on detachable accessories. The secondary market is full of "cigar" Seekers missing their wings, horizontal stabilisers, vertical stabilisers, landing gear, fists etc.

But yeah, by 2018 standards this toy is inexcusably excremental.

Yeah, by today's standards, the G1 Seekers won't fly. The only things they have going for them these days are their historical significance and nostalgia value. They are the great granddaddies of all the Starscream and seeker transformers we have today.

But in fairness, they were basically repacks of toys from another brand that existed pre-Transformers, and no one knew how transforming robots would fare commercially back in the early 1980's.

I'm not sure why the Cybervese line exists. They've made much better toys in the past, and might as well have gave us repacks of those. Also if they are suppose to be for young children/fans, then isn't that what RescueBots is for?

Paulbot

7th August 2018, 11:07 PM

I'm not sure why the Cybervese line exists. They've made much better toys in the past, and might as well have gave us repacks of those. Also if they are suppose to be for young children/fans, then isn't that what RescueBots is for?

The Cyberverse line supports the new TV show and both the show and toys are aimed at a young (but not Rescue Bots young) audience. Just like the Robots In Disguise show and toy line it replaces were for the pst few years.

But because Cyberverse is going full G1 I think some older fans assume it must be meant for them (in a way they didn�t think the same about RID). Seige/WFC and Studio Series is aimed at us.

http://i.imgur.com/D3zJIYK.jpg

GoktimusPrime

8th August 2018, 12:53 AM

Core "Boys" is so sexist. :rolleyes:

But I don't buy that defence. Most Transformers lines are aimed at kids, including G1. Many of us children of the 80s were in that "Core Kids" age range when we got into G1. G1 was "Ages 5 and Up." Yet the toys managed to both engage and expand our interest (or we wouldn't be here now). I know kids today in the Core Kids age range who are mad fans of the Generations line. I recently picked up a Titans Return Rewind figure to give to my daughter's friend because he's been looking everywhere for that toy but has been unable to find it. I've seen kids at my daughter's school playing with Generations figures.

As Michael McConnohie said, kids aren't stupid and they really hate it when adults treat them as idiots by presenting them with condescending material. McConnohie believes that this is why Transformers succeeded where many of its competitors failed. I'm inclined to agree with FatalityPitt... I really don't know which demographic they're targeting with these toys. They're above the level of toddler/pre-school age children (age 4-), but below the level of school age children (age 5+).

Pic: Me when I was in the "Core Kids" age range enjoying G1 Transformers
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y227/goktimusprime/Transformers/G1%20toyplay/g1_1986.jpg

Jellico

8th August 2018, 08:29 AM

HeHeh I had that Voltron. Parents didn't understand the difference between cars and lions :)

GoktimusPrime

8th August 2018, 09:16 PM

dirge

8th August 2018, 09:18 PM

And remember that G1 was "Ages 5 and Up."
I don't think that 6 year olds are necessarily this stupid, but rather Hasbro is assuming that they are. The tone of these toys is condescending to children which is usually a recipe for shelfwarmers.

This.

Sure, some 6+ year olds are stupid. Usually... they grow up to be stupid adults.

Most kids of school age are smart enough to know when they're being spoken down to.

Paulbot

8th August 2018, 10:59 PM

I see echoes of a particular, ever more common, online trend that I dislike appearing here, and I think G1 toys are often looked at with rose coloured glasses.

To try and stay on topic, I dislike this figure and won�t buy it, but comparing a �Warrior� class figure (and the parts count and paint app limitations that class has) to a �Deluxe� class is unfair, especially to a toy like FE Starscream who was the last gasp of a deluxe class at a complexity we�ve not seen since. The �Armada� Starscream or FOC Starscream would be slightly fairer comparisons (and yes Cyberverse Starscream would still pale).

From what I�ve seen, the closest comparative figures to these new Warrior class figures are the good old Fast Action Battlers.

The comparison photo has encouraged me to buy RID Starscream though.

dirge

9th August 2018, 12:33 PM

I see echoes of a particular, ever more common, online trend that I dislike appearing here, and I think G1 toys are often looked at with rose coloured glasses.

As long as there�s context for the comparison I have no issue with G1 comparisons.

Sure, G1 Starscream the unposeable partsformer doesn�t stack up against a lot of more modern Transformers, but in the context of the 1984 Transformers, he�s not a notably bad toy. Reflector was a Partsformer mess. Prime has add on fists that can�t hold his gun.

If we�re just doing a direct comparison between a G1 toy and a modern toy without that time setting context... well then yeah. Rose coloured glasses may be relevant.

MayzaPrime

9th August 2018, 01:14 PM

I initially said that I would be skipping the RID line, but was eventually won over by how much fun I had with my kids playing with them. So I bought a few myself.

I really don't think I will have this problem with the Cyberverse line. I really think that my kids will be bored by this line. My 7 year old has now moved on to the the Studio Series line and is bugging me for Starscream, I really can't see him going back to a basic line like this.

SharkyMcShark

9th August 2018, 02:32 PM

Even if we just do a straight up comparison with Warrior Class RID Starscream, we can see that this Warrior Class Starscream is outright inferior. I actually gave RID Starscream a pretty positive review (http://www.otca.com.au/boards/showthread.php?t=23960), but I cannot say the same about this steaming pile of faecal matter.

If we do an outright comparison with the bloody Thrilling 30/Combiner Wars legends class seeker, this comes out as a loser.

griffin

9th August 2018, 03:48 PM

(moved discussion from CYB Warrior Starscream toy review topic (http://www.otca.com.au/boards/showthread.php?t=25692))

griffin

9th August 2018, 03:51 PM

I don't think that 6 year olds are necessarily this stupid, but rather Hasbro is assuming that they are. The tone of these toys is condescending to children which is usually a recipe for shelfwarmers.

Don't forget, us consumers aren't the customer of the Toy Company... it's the Retailers... and that's who the Toy Companies care about pleasing with their demands or requirements. This sort of "dumbing down" of toys isn't the fault of the Toy Companies, it's the fault of the major retailers (mostly Walmart, TRU, and Amazon) who demand these lower standards in order to be able to sell to the lowest common denominator, so that their profit projections are maximised by capturing all of the potential market (if a toy requires too much thought or skill, they lose a portion of the market who just wants some cheap coloured plastic to throw at their game-ap, youtube-zombie kid).
Remember, retailers are presented with a range of products every year at Toyfair (in several countries around the world). The Retailers are the ones who choose the toys that they think they can sell to the most customers, and if possible, marketed for free (by a cartoon, movie or TV advertising paid for by the Toy Company), and with the best profit margin possible. Toy companies can produce all the quality toys they want, but if they don't meet those 3 criteria (free advertising, simple/gimmick, huge profit margin), the Retailers will just ignore it and walk over to the products that ticks their checklist. This could be why Hasbro has tried to split up Transformers across 3 demographics, to get most of their products to appeal to Retailers (the two younger demographics) in order to get the Brand into their stores, and if possible, convince them to order some of the older demographic toys (Generations) if they have room in their budget... because Hasbro knows that a 30+ year Brand like Transformers ends up having adults who were fans as a kid, buying TFs for their kids or kids of their friends.... and then maybe buying something nostalgic for themselves while they are there because they remember those toys/characters as a kid.

Generations toys are the more interesting and challenging line of Transformers (even with the various gimmicks added just to be able to get Retailers to even look at them at Toyfair), but the major retailers go for the cartoon/movie based toys that are gimmick heavy and simple for all types of children, not just the ones who are more likely to embrace and demand toys of the Brand.
Before the major players dictated things, the smaller operators and independents would have more buying power to be more interested in quality over quantity... which is why the 80s and early 90s had some great toylines. Now, Toy Companies have to make what *their* customers want, or else they go out of business.

Maybe a way to encourage Retailers to buy/demand the more challenging, detailed Transformers toys, is to have recommended "intelligence" levels on the packaging instead of "difficulty", so that their public image is that they aren't a source of simple products... or would it be too politically incorrect in today's world to imply that a child isn't as intelligent as others just because they prefer a toy that has an intelligence rating on it of "non-challenging" ?

Ralph Wiggum

9th August 2018, 04:10 PM

Kinda answered your own question there Griff. Why pick a term which is potentially controversial (warranted or not) when you can choose a word with none of the connotations?

Trent

9th August 2018, 04:24 PM

As long as there�s context for the comparison I have no issue with G1 comparisons.

Sure, G1 Starscream the unposeable partsformer doesn�t stack up against a lot of more modern Transformers, but in the context of the 1984 Transformers, he�s not a notably bad toy. Reflector was a Partsformer mess. Prime has add on fists that can�t hold his gun.

If we�re just doing a direct comparison between a G1 toy and a modern toy without that time setting context... well then yeah. Rose coloured glasses may be relevant.

Have to disagree about Starscream. First time I handled one as a kid (mid eighties), I knew even in the context of toys of that day and age it was a disappointment. I remember clearly thinking �Is that it? It doesn�t do anything!�.

dirge

9th August 2018, 04:38 PM

Have to disagree about Starscream. First time I handled one as a kid (mid eighties), I knew even in the context of toys of that day and age it was a disappointment. I remember clearly thinking �Is that it? It doesn�t do anything!�.

Yeah it wasn�t a standout back then. But, I mean, there were a few Transformers back then that were kibbleformers & add-on fists were common. Heck. Even Optimus Prime has a trailer than just sat to the side of the robot itself.

The fact the winds and tail fins detached makes it look worse than it is - technically they rotate to transform, rather than detach. But of course they detach very very easily.

Bemblebuu

9th August 2018, 06:42 PM

The 'parts-formery' aspect of the original G1 seekers was always annoying to me as a kid, mainly because there'd always be that chance of losing something. As an adult, I look back on those toys as flawed but at least they were well made (the amount of die-cast metal alone was awesome). Say what you will about G1 figures, but the vast majority had fantastic vehicle/ alternate modes, even if the robot modes suffered.

The new Cyberverse line has mostly crap robot and alt modes. The plastic used feels cheap and there is no way in Hell these are worth what Hasbro/ retail want for them...which is really the crux of the matter for me, irrespective of whether these figures are 'meant just for kids'. They should be priced at at least a third of what they are asking.

i_amtrunks

9th August 2018, 06:58 PM

My six year old nephew has really been bitten by the tf bug in the last three months. Loved his rid and rescuebits figures but prefers my spare predators and turbomasterswhen he comes to visit (also loves the real gear sublime from the first movie but can�t quite get the transformations as yet)

I showed him the pics of the first wave and asked if he�d like some of them as presents, his response of �no thanks, I want more of these� (whilst shoving rid battle bashers /whatever the two packs that combine are called in my face.

I think they�d be a good transformer for a three to four year old with no experience in the same way I think those ginormous brittle/ thin plastic figures that only have moving shoulders (which there are tf ones) are good toys... not very much and please never for my kid. There are bootleg knockoff toys with better feeling plastic and designs than these, for a much more appealing price.

I know the retailers drive a lot of these decisions now, but those are the same idiots who only buy a thousand wave one movie figures and wonder why they don�t sell...

DELTAprime

9th August 2018, 07:33 PM

I know not everyone will agree but I like the simplified engineering we have on more recent figures over the figures that were complicated up because of the Bayverse success. While yes there are plenty of great figures from that era before the re-simplification there are also those that were needlessly complicated. I want to have fun with my Transformers and a transformation that strikes the balance of it's just plain fun and not boring is right for me.

And frankly one of my favorite Transformers is the electronic RB Optimus Primal, a one step transformation which is just fun.

Though I do miss the solidness of figures like my Henkei Convoy and now that we have lost Takara's higher quality paint jobs I'm missing that also.

reillyd

9th August 2018, 09:31 PM

Yup, 6+.

And remember that G1 was "Ages 5 and Up."
I don't think that 6 year olds are necessarily this stupid, but rather Hasbro is assuming that they are. The tone of these toys is condescending to children which is usually a recipe for shelfwarmers.

While I disagree with you on how much fun Warrior Starscream is, it's definitely aimed at a younger audience than 6+. Hasbro have clearly overestimated the age range for this, and with focus panels of actual kids I can't see how they overshot by such a strong amount. Unless it's for toy-related safety laws on the gimmick (when it breaks, maybe shatters into small parts due to poor quality) I can't see why it wasn't ages 4-6

GoktimusPrime

9th August 2018, 09:56 PM

Maybe a way to encourage Retailers to buy/demand the more challenging, detailed Transformers toys, is to have recommended "intelligence" levels on the packaging instead of "difficulty", so that their public image is that they aren't a source of simple products... or would it be too politically incorrect in today's world to imply that a child isn't as intelligent as others just because they prefer a toy that has an intelligence rating on it of "non-challenging" ?
Remember when TF toys had those difficulty levels on the packaging?

Anyway, it's not really just about the challenge level but the overall tone of the toy and the way that the figures are just so badly compromised by their gimmick. A gimmick should be made to serve the toy, the toy should not be made to serve the gimmick.

I've brought each of the Cyberverse Warriors into class this week and none of them have interested the kids. I usually put a toy on my desk and if a toy is any good, kids will want to look at it, pick it up and ask about it. These Cyberverse Warriors were practically invisible as none of the kids barely even noticed that they were there. And yeah, some of the kids asked me if they were Happy Meal toys. :rolleyes:

FatalityPitt

9th August 2018, 10:29 PM

I confess, I feel bad about my rant earlier about the Cyberverse figures. I was quite heavy handed with my words.

Now that I've cooled my head a bit - I know I'm not the right audience for these toys and I have no plans on getting any, but the thing that's upsetting is that they're in the $35 price point. If they were $10-15, they wouldn't be so bad. Looking at the Starscream figure for instance; there's no leg articulation! The legs can't even move independently and the best Starscream can do is bow. All the Generations Legends figures have leg articulation (knees, thighs and sometimes feet), and they're $15-17 cheaper!! Yes, these Warrior Class figures are bigger, but not by much. Plus,the paint applications on these Cyberverse figures are relatively scarce. I suppose the spring-activated gimmicks are where the value is... Still, these things aren't worth $35.

Galvatran

9th August 2018, 10:32 PM

Have to disagree about Starscream. First time I handled one as a kid (mid eighties), I knew even in the context of toys of that day and age it was a disappointment. I remember clearly thinking �Is that it? It doesn�t do anything!�.
As a kid I was blown away with the nosecone threading through the chest cavity. I still do today. :)

FatalityPitt

9th August 2018, 11:45 PM

As a kid I was blown away with the nosecone threading through the chest cavity. I still do today. :)

That part of the transformation confused me when I was a kid :o. I thought it was amazing how the arms formed the fuselage.

The point I wanted to make with the G1 Jets was this - even though they weren't very good toys even back then, Transformers was still a very new thing in the 1980's. Even though Hasbro had a plan on how to market the toys, no one knew with certainty how they'd do commercially in the west, or what it would take to make them successful. In 2018, Hasbro should now have Transformers boiled down to a science.

Hasbro had 34 years to perfect the formula, yet they've come up with these Cyberverse figures, and are selling them for more than what they're worth. If the Cyberverse figures we're re-issues of toys from the early 1990's, I'd forgive them for selling them so expensively since they'd have some historical/nostalgic value. BUT they're not. These are new moulds, and by now, Hasbro should be able to do much better given the price they're asking for.

Just my honest opinion

GoktimusPrime

10th August 2018, 12:53 AM

The G1 Jets were by no means flawless. Their greatest flaw is the fact that they needlessly rely too heavily on detachable parts. The wings and both horizontal and vertical stabilisers are detachable for no discernible reason. How many G1 Jets do you find on the secondary market missing all of its accessories? Without their accessories they can neither form a jet or a proper robot (or at most, a robot with no fists). In this regard even G1 Ratchet and Ironhide are better toys because even if you lose all of their accessories including the decks, the core toy is still a fully formed robot that can even transform into a four wheeled vehicle (basically a ute).

But having said that, the G1 Jets didn't have a condescending tone to their design as a result of being slave to a gimmick. The Jets would've been a whole lot better if the wings and stabilisers had been permanently attached. And then there's price - the G1 Jets retailed for roughly $40 by today's standard, only $5~10 dearer than what these Cyberverse Warriors are selling for. Even with their drawbacks, I still think that the G1 Jets offer loads more value for money than say Cyberverse Starscream.

And I still don't buy the "Ages 6+" defence. Many of us were around that age (give or take a few years) when we got our first G1 toy. These were the toys that made us life-long collectors. It'll be interesting to see how many kids playing with these Cyberverse toys today will still be collectors for Transformers when they get older. A good toy is one that you don't just love today but will continue to love tomorrow.
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y227/goktimusprime/Transformers/G1%20toyplay/th_g1_1986.jpghttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y227/goktimusprime/Transformers/G1%20toyplay/th_g1_1988.jpg

FatalityPitt

10th August 2018, 10:21 AM

I still think that the G1 Jets offer loads more value for money than say Cyberverse Starscream.

Yeah. The G1 Jets had die cast metal parts.

DarkHyren

10th August 2018, 12:05 PM

Has anyone else noticed that the Cyberverse toys are nearly the same design and quality as the the "Authentics" range that are sold are Woolworths for $10?
I was looking at pictures of the Authentics and Cyberverse Optimus and it looks like the Cyberverse one could be nearly the same mold, yet Hasbo thinks that it's worth three times the price.

Why would any parent spend $35 for these when they can get a similar item from the supermarket for $10, and as others have mentioned children arent interested in them either, preferring toys from the generations or RiD warriors range.
If the Cyberverse warriors were aimed at kids 3-6 years and were around $10-15 then sure they'd probably be fine, but at $35 this level of basic cheap and nasty is unacceptable, especially when RiD warriors were $20-25 for a far superior toy.

GoktimusPrime

10th August 2018, 01:06 PM

Yeah. The G1 Jets had die cast metal parts.
To be fair, the reason why many Japanese toy companies switched to die-cast metal was because it "was a great cost saving measure as companies put less money into expensive casting tooling" (ref (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die-cast_toy)). So basically it was done because metal was cheaper than plastic. Die-cast metal was phased out in 1986 as plastic had become cheaper than metal.

Has anyone else noticed that the Cyberverse toys are nearly the same design and quality as the the "Authentics" range that are sold are Woolworths for $10?
↑This.

If the Cyberverse warriors were aimed at kids 3-6 years and were around $10-15 then sure they'd probably be fine, but at $35 this level of basic cheap and nasty is unacceptable, especially when RiD warriors were $20-25 for a far superior toy.
Yup.

Having said that, I just bought the large Optimus Prime and Megatron for $60 each. As expensive as MP Dinobot and BW Megatron are, I'd wager that the size, complexity and engineering of those toys would justify their high prices (just as MP Sunstreaker's tech level justifies why he's x2 the price of MP Lambor). I reckon that I've been, in relative terms, been more ripped off than anyone who's purchased MP Dinobot.

Man I cannot wait to open these toys and be disappointed! (I've seen video reviews) :p #suckerforpunishment #buyersremorse

BigTransformerTrev

10th August 2018, 02:55 PM

While I wasn't a fan of those Movieverse toys (since we have a new director I reckon we should stop calling it 'Bayverse') that took forever to do like leader Sentinel Prime, these are too simplistic. I mean they haven't even bothered to do particularly good paint jobs - just look at Warrior Starscream :rolleyes:

I found RID to be too simplistic too. I thought the toys that had good levels of difficulty - as in not too easy but not frustratingly hard - were those from Cybertron, Animated and a lot of the earlier Generations toys. Give us more of that!

I'll be skipping the vast majority of this line, and that is something I rarely do.

Galvatran

10th August 2018, 03:15 PM

We like to believe we can think like a toddler or young kid but the fact is most of us here aren't. Being a large toy company Hasbro spends much time & $$ conducting consumer research with kids as well as price sensitivity analysis with buyers (mums & dads). Sure they can get it wrong. But you know what they say about opinions & butt holes. :D

shockNwave

10th August 2018, 08:58 PM

Years ago the Animated line was released and it proved to be the most kiddie-friendly in appearance than any that came before it. It proved you can have a simplistic, comical looking Transformer that can also have a challenging and involved level of transformation, so as to appeal to both children and adults alike. The Animated series deserves praise for being so balanced.

Then began the devolution, starting with RID15. A series that is crap throughout most of it's classes due to it's simpler transformations but the warrior/deluxe class is it's strength with gems like Jazz, Scorponok/Paralon, Fracture, Bisk/Thermidor and Megatronus/Blastwave/Bludgeon among others.

Now we have Cyberverse, whose designs are worthy of a McDonalds outlet while being a rip off and disregards the adult collectors at the same time.

Conclusion: If RID15 is the poor man's Animated then Cyberverse is the rock bottom man's version.

Paulbot

10th August 2018, 11:11 PM

I think that the reason these toys are getting this much negative response is the G1 style. There's a blind eye given to the Rescue Bot toys by a lot of the adult collectors because those "are for kids" (in other words "not me").

There's a blind eye given to the RID toys for the same reason (despite a good cartoon and some great Warrior class toys). This is evident by how little discussion on this board revolves around those lines (despite some of us collecting them).

If these new Cyberverse toys were based on a new season of the RID cartoon instead of the holy G1 cartoon people would surely be looking right past these.

The 6+ thing? These toys have packaging for multiple countries so probably the most restrictive country (which ever that is) sets the minimum.

I was going to make the same point as Galvatran, these toys are market tested and based on market research for the audience they see.

I agree the price tag on the warriors is too much for me. I saw Shockwave, the one I actually want to buy, for $32, $35, and $42 across three stores - but for $20 I would have got him.

Looking across other toy lines (outside collector aimed lines like Black Series and Marvel Legends) the Warrior class toys look on par with the other "boy toys" out there.

i_amtrunks

10th August 2018, 11:35 PM

I actually think the rescue boys toys are awesome. They all have gimmicks to their transformations and are quick and easy for their age bracket. The colour schemes are nice and they toys themselves make it clear as to what parts are meant to do what in the 1-5 steps of transformation. As a bonus they feel tough and I�ve seen the rough play they can handle first hand.

From all reports of people holding these and using them, it really does seem like the quality and design aspects ate incredibly low, which is where I see the real loss of value for money. Why spend $40 on what looks like and reviews as a knock off toy when for the same money I can get a 300 piece LEGO set, 3 Star Wars figures, a nerf blaster bigger than my head or any number of 6+ month old console games?

GoktimusPrime

11th August 2018, 09:07 AM

Rescue Bots are also no worse than pre-school targeted TF toys that have come before them
e.g. First Transformers, 1-2-3 Transformers, Go-Go-Go-Bots/TF Big Adventures etc.
And IMO Rescue Bots are actually the best of these lines (as someone who has collected from each of them :)). So in that context I think they're great.

But in the context of toys aimed at school aged kids, which most Transformer lines are (including G1 etc. -- think about how old you were when you got your first Transformer) I find Cyberverse just indefensible. Even compared to more recent lines that have stylistically "kiddified" (for lack of a better term) such as Animated, Prime and RiD Ver 2, I find that Cyberverse still falls distinctively short.

Voyager TFPRiD Megatron was a toy that I gave quite a negative review on (http://www.otca.com.au/boards/showthread.php?t=12876), and I still think is a lacklustre toy... but comparing him with Ultimate Class Megatron last night and suddenly Voyager TFPRiD Megatron looks good. Only that the Ultimate Megatron was about $15 dearer! :eek: These Cyberverse toys are making toys that I previously considered bad look good!

For those who haven't noticed yet, my reviews for the Cyberverse Ultimate leaders are here:
Optimus Prime (http://otca.com.au/boards/showthread.php?t=25716)
Megatron (http://otca.com.au/boards/showthread.php?t=25717)

Trent

11th August 2018, 08:29 PM

As someone with a kid that has a bunch of Rescue Bots and has given them hell since he was old enough to hold them, they are built tough. Not a single one has come anywhere near breaking after years of toddler play.

We like to believe we can think like a toddler or young kid but the fact is most of us here aren't. Being a large toy company Hasbro spends much time & $$ conducting consumer research with kids as well as price sensitivity analysis with buyers (mums & dads). Sure they can get it wrong. But you know what they say about opinions & butt holes. :D

As someone who actually has a toddler/young kid aged son who loves transformers, who also has cousins that are both older and younger than him that play with his transformers, I see a lot of people getting it wrong about �What Kids Want�. I can�t speak for every kid but from observing my own son, who is almost 4 and can already transform my G1 Optimus Prime and Ultra Magnus, he doesn�t care how complicated the transformation is. He puts his Rescue Bots right next to G1 Bots and in there with the multitude of other transformers from movieverse to generations and plays happily. He doesn�t care how articulated they are, how gappy the bot/alt modes are, how much paint is on them, whether they sacrificed articulation for a crappy gimmick. His favourite of mine at the moment is G1 Flywheels! Flywheels, the most bricky of G1 bricks there ever was!!! He�s happy just to have a toy that looks like the character on the show he loves or that just looks cool. His imagination does the rest :)

I agree with Galvatran, Hasbro have market tested this stuff. It�s not aimed at us. I would speculate that the G1 styling was to catch the eye of parents that grew up with Transformers and might be more inclined to then purchase one for their child. It would also be cheaper than designing a whole new line from scratch. That pricing is horrendous though. It most definitely should not be excused.

GoktimusPrime

11th August 2018, 10:15 PM

But as you said, Rescue Bots have heft. Cyberverse toys on the other hand have notably less mass compared to the RiD ver 2 toys.
e.g.
Robots In Disguise Warrior Class Optimus Prime (without his weapon) is 91g vs Cyberverse Warrior Shockwave who's only 68g. So despite a $10 hike in price, Cyberverse is giving us figures with about 23g less toy. That's not incredibly good bang for your buck. :(

If they want to give us cheaper and simpler toys, fine... so bring the price down.
As I said in my Cyberverse Ultimate Optimus Prime review, this toy wouldn't be so bad if it retailed at about $40 instead of $60. The Cyberverse Warrior toys wouldn't be so bad if they were about $20 instead of $35.

But quite frankly, if they're going to charge us the current price of a Deluxe POTP for a Warrior Cyberverse then I'd expect a similar standard of quality. If they're going to price the Ultimates at above Voyager Class (and just $10 shy of Ultra Class), then I'd damn well expect the standard to be somewhere in between those two Classes. If you want to pitch the toys lower, fine... but lower the price.

This is why I never much got into the Fast Action Battlers when they came out in 2007. Simplified versions of Movieformers at the same price of a Deluxe. Remember how badly FAB Brawl pegwarmed? That toy retailed for the same RRP as Deluxe Brawl, and Deluxe Brawl sold really well while FAB Brawl gathered dust. Even worse was the redeco "Desert Attack FAB Brawl." Even though the FABs were aimed a younger audience, it's clear that kids preferred the Deluxe because they want toys that engage them at a higher level.

Think about when Transformers started waning in popularity. It was generally around the time where more less-engaging toys that were more gimmick-laden became more numerous. We know that it was dwindling toy sales that prompted Hasbro to cancel the US G1 cartoon after only 3 episodes into Season Four. And we know that after Action Masters came along in 1990 toy sales took a further plunge resulting in the cancellation of Transformers in America as well as the cancellation of the G1 comics in 1991. 2 years later and G1 was dead.

And we know that Transformers came back when Beast Wars came along. And Beast Wars had some really simple Transformers too -- just look at the Flipchangers. They were literally 1-Step Changers. But they weren't condescending in tone like 1-Step Changers today. The figures themselves weren't compromised by the Flipchange gimmick. 1-Step Changers tend to be bricks in robot mode, whereas the Flipchangers all have no fewer than 9 points of articulation. Plus weapon storage. All for what would be the equivalent of about $15 by today's standard. Compare this with the Ultimate Class leaders in Cyberverse. They have decent leg articulation, but from waist up it's a G1-level of articulation -- i.e. any articulation is incidental as necessitated by the transformation as opposed to being explicitly engineered for the sake of poseability. Ultimate Class Optimus Prime has articulated arms for the same reason as to why the original G1 Optimus Prime has articulated arms -- it's because of the way the arms transform. Okay, granted the inclusion of elbows and head articulation is purposeful and that's what makes him a loads better toy than Megatron which sorely lacks these things (but would be massively improved with them). But really, while this was fine by 1980s standards it's pretty poor for 2018. Not for sixty freaking dollars.

And remember when Robots In Disguise first hit shelves in 2001? This was months before the cartoon started airing, so kids had no exposure to the show yet -- but the toys were FLYING off shelves as soon as they came out! :eek: And those toys weren't simplistic - these were the toys that would go on to inspire Binaltech and Masterpiece. But kids love them! These kids are now young adults and I've met a few of them who are collectors now, who keenly remember playing with RID as their childhood toys in the same way that we remember G1 as our childhood figures.

Anyway, time will tell. Let's see if these toys start selling like hot cakes or if they linger as dust-gathering shelfwarmers. Let's see if the kids who are playing with Cyberverse today will become fans for life or if they'll just end up... qu... qui... quitting Transformers (that was hard to say... I need to wash my mouth out).

FatalityPitt

11th August 2018, 10:39 PM

It's like Nestle incrementally reducing the size of the Kit Kat bars and thinking they could keep charging the same amount as before.

Our criticisms may be harsh sometimes, but someone has to speak up, or else the companies producing these things will continue pushing the envelope to see how much they can get away with for the sake of boosting profit. We want them to be profitable, but not that way.

Galvatran

11th August 2018, 10:50 PM

Let's see if the kids who are playing with Cyberverse today will become fans for life or if they'll just end up... qu... qui... quitting Transformers (that was hard to say... I need to wash my mouth out).
Commentary like this does absolutely nothing to define the Line's success or failure. It's a throw away line that rears it's head ever so often in the fandom. I can't speak for Hasbro but I'm pretty sure they set themselves targets for success: Net sales value, profit, distribution, brand invigoration, etc. It would not involve putting this Line on a pedestal.

Trent

12th August 2018, 11:22 AM

GoktimusPrime

12th August 2018, 11:30 AM

Commentary like this does absolutely nothing to define the Line's success or failure. It's a throw away line that rears it's head ever so often in the fandom. I can't speak for Hasbro but I'm pretty sure they set themselves targets for success: Net sales value, profit, distribution, brand invigoration, etc. It would not involve putting this Line on a pedestal.
That can also depend on what proportion of the line these toys occupy. The current/new stuff we have on shelves atm are:
* Power of the Primes
* Studio Series
* Cyberverse
And later this year we'll also have the Bumblebee movie toys.

So yeah, Cyberverse are occupying approximately a third of the toyline, and by year's end it will be roughly a quarter. This isn't nearly as bad as what happened in 1990 where the horrible compromised toys occupied half of the toyline. :eek: And we know that that was the beginning of the end for G1.

Another thing to consider is brand momentum. Another reason why Action Masters helped to kill off G1 is because Transformers had already been losing momentum since 1987. It was already a shrinking brand by the time Action Masters came along and kicked the brand in the janglies. Now compare this with say Beast Machines and Animorphs which followed the highly successful Beast Wars. As widely disliked as those toys were, they still didn't kill off Transformers because the fandom was still riding off the coattails of Beast Wars' popularity. From Beast Wars Transformers had fallen from a high into a low, but then recovered by the time Car Robot/RiD came along. There was another dip in 2002, but again the momentum was still there, and it recovered again in 2003 with Armada - enough momentum that Hasbro was convinced to go ahead with the idea of a live action film for Transformers.

The problem with Action Masters was that it took Transformers from an already low point - the cartoon had already been cancelled and the fandom was already weakened - to a much lower point. The brand can take "hits" if it's coming from a position of relative strength. And yeah, the brand at the moment is incredibly strong, so I would not at all expect Cyberverse to really put much of a dent in it.

So I'm not at all crying "RUINED FOREVER" with these toys and saying that these figures will spell the end for Transformers. We've all seen Transformers survive through much, much worse than this (like Action Masters). We remember what it was like being a Transformers collector through way tougher times (like the mid 1990s). These toys aren't concerning me from a POV of it ruining the franchise... but they're still inexcusably poor toys. And shelfwarmers hurt the brand. Probably not enough to ruin it, but it's not doing it any favours either.

And yeah, "throw away line" pretty much encapsulates the inherently flawed philosophy behind these toys. :(

BigTransformerTrev

12th August 2018, 12:18 PM

Been interesting to read everyone's responses to this topic. By now so there are so many points others have made that I want to respond too it would take too long to quote/coy/paste/edit each one so I'll just chuck in some general comments on the latest discussions :)

RID vs RB vs Cyberverse

RB vs Cyberverse
*Frankly Rescue Bots were awesome! They came out at a time where both myself and lots of close friends had very little boys at home and they were perfect to introduce them to Transformer toys. As others have noted, they are strongly built, very hardy (except for bloody Quickshadow (http://www.bigangrytrev.com/toy-review-rescue-bots-quickshadow/) - what an awful toy!) and a lot of fun for younger kids, especially when you add all the extras like bases and Mini-Con animals that became tools for the bigger bots. Add into that a cartoon with no Decepticons so kids got to see Autobots act as recusing heroes instead of warriors and it's proven a highly successful endeavor.

*I don't think it's massively fair to say 'well Rescue Bots were simplistic so whats peoples problem with Cyberverse' as they are aimed at different nieches. Indeed there is a RB spinoff cartoon coming up so we know that Cyberverse wont be aimed at the really younger kids. And besides, at least a lot of the RB toys looked good, the likes of Brushfire has a lot more visual appeal in both modes than the new Warrior Starscream.

RID vs Cyberverse
*The reason RID doesn't seem to cop a ton of flak is that most people tuned out to it ages ago. The cartoon has been fairly lackluster and has not generated the kind of loyal following that Animated and Prime did before. People just don't pay attention
*The toys have not been the most horrible ever made but certainly not the best. For kids around the 5+ mark they aren't too bad, though not complicated enough to entrance the older kids and certainly not adults. The combiner groups later on were particularly poorly done.
*RID tried to bridge the gap between the movieverse-style of Prime and the old G1 aesthetic. So while it was the same universe as Prime you now had:

-Talking Bumblebee
-Talking Grimlock
-Sideswipe: Red sports car
-Optimus: Big trailer on his truck mode
-Ratchet nearly all white with a windscreen chest
-Starscream in G1 colours
-Toys of Bludgeon, Skywarp, Cyclonus, Ratbat etc all with a G1'ish asthetic
-Motormaster leading the Stunticons and combining into Menasor

Add into that trying to introduce a ton of new semi-animal themed Cons and the cartoon and toyline tried to do too much and never really shined at any of it. It will most likely be a cartoon and toyline that will disappear and people will say 'Oh yeah, yeah it was ok I guess'.

*It remains to be seen what the Cyberverse cartoon will be like in comparison to the RID cartoon. They are certainly pushing the G1 theme a lot more than RID did, and maybe that will be more successful as a theme than one you cant pin down. Depends how good the characterization in the cartoon is done, hope its a lot better than the function descriptions on the toys.
*But if the RID toys were a bit too dumbed down for a lot of fans, the Cyberverse toys look like they are definitely too dumbed down for almost all the fans. The more images that come out of the toys online the more people seem to think they suck, and that includes kids! Like many have said, kids don't like being talked down too, and given the price tags for these lackluster toys there are so many better things a kid could get in a toy store for that much cash. As for the adult collectors, I reckon mmany will save their bucks and skip the line altogether.

KIDS LIKE HIGHER QUALITY TOYS BETTER!

Example: Titans Return Twinferno vs RID Twinferno (http://www.bigangrytrev.com/toy-review-rid-twinferno/)

Packaging says RID is for 6+ and TR is for 8+

I have both and I'm not going to give my perspective - I'm going to give it from a pair of 5 & 6 year old boys.

My son picked the RID version to give to his mate for his mates 6th birthday several months ago. At the Big W Toysale he picked a TR version for himself. His mate came over the other week and brought his TF's to play with my son and his.

RID Twinferno hardly got a look in because they both thought that the TR version looked cooler in both modes, and with better articulation, a Titan Master, a couple of rifles etc was more fun to play with. As a result this toy, that is apparently aimed at kids older than them, was one they both figured out how to transform without assistance.

Kids don't need to be talked down to by the manufacturer. They need to have their sensibilities appealed to. And higher quality toys always have a better shot at that.

GoktimusPrime

12th August 2018, 04:53 PM

Well said, Trev. :) Agree 100%.

BigTransformerTrev

12th August 2018, 07:04 PM

Well said, Trev. :) Agree 100%.

Cheers mate :) I thought the Twinferno example particularly apt, mainly because of what I witnessed but also because it's a character neither boy had seen in a cartoon or movie, so both lads were judging the toys based on their appeal and playability, rather than how much they liked an onscreen character :)

I reckon Galvatran has a point about they probably did do market research before producing the Cyberverse line. But given that that research was probably based in America and done with families who had the time to do it, that doesn't bode great. The US ranks around the middle internationally for Science and Literacy and below average for Mathematics. Given they probably didn't do market research with the cream-of-the-crop, they may have undershot what kids of certain ages expected of toys when considered on an international level. A 5 year old Aussie kid (who averages significantly higher in the three mentioned academic areas - Google it folks!) might expect more complexity and quality than his US equivalent. That's purely speculation on my part of course and I could very well be completely wrong.

GoktimusPrime

13th August 2018, 01:11 AM

I'm sure that Hasbro play tests all of their toys. I suppose one potential problem with focus test groups is that it's always going to be a fairly limited sample of people that you're testing it on. While I'm sure it works most of the time, there may be times where the group tests different from how the overall market responds. It sometimes happens for other products like say movies.

e.g. the test audience for Apocalypse Now performed really poorly with the test audience who rated the film as "boring."

Or heck, how many times have you come up with what you thought was a really good lesson plan and then it worked really brilliantly with one class... but then totally bombed with your other classes (or vice versa)? ;) :)

Ralph Wiggum

13th August 2018, 09:47 AM

The problem is that Hasbro can�t please everyone, and for this line at least they�re going for the casual mass market who have limited knowledge on what a quality Transformer is. Just the other day I was visiting my niece (5yrs) and nephew (3yrs) and to my pleasant surprise they were watching Rescuebots. I can bet that their parents have different views to myself on what to look for in a quality Transformer and will pay whatever price is on the shelf.

GoktimusPrime

13th August 2018, 12:15 PM

RE: Cyberverse cartoon clip reveal (http://otca.com.au/boards/showthread.php?t=25722)

This doesn't instill me with confidence and much like the toyline seems to be taking a step backwards for the target audience. The tone of the clip feels condescending to me - and as Trev pointed out well, the toys themselves are pretty condescending to kids as they are. The mecha designs, the animation and the way that they've made Bumblebee into an intellectually impaired semi-mute just feels condescending. Bumblebee having memory loss I can accept. Not sure why he can't talk again, but again, fine... TF Prime Soundwave was a mute but he evoked an incredibly powerful presence (and was often more potent because he didn't speak). And this is the same target audience that Transformers Prime and Transformers Robots In Disguise were targeting. :eek: Granted I felt that the tone of RiD was a notable step down from Prime, and this again is a continuing step down from RiD. But why is the show going backwards instead of forwards?

If we reflect back to our own childhoods in the 1980s, one thing that made Transformers stand out from say the Challenge of the Go-Bots was the different tones between the shows.

The Animation

The animation in Cyberverse looks like a modern update of the Hanna-Barbera style animation from Challenge of the Go-Bots, whereas the animation in Transformers Prime felt more like an update of G1 (and indeed Prime was the 2nd TF series to win an Emmy Award for its animation (the 1st being Beast Wars)). Sure, Prime's design aesthetics was a blend between "Cartoon Network" and Bayformers, but as far as the animation (not design) quality was concern, it was really top notch. I'd say Prime was the best animated Transformers series ever. Both Prime and RiD were animated by the Tokyo-based Polygon studios which has done animation work for a lot of anime, including Ghost In The Shell Innocence etc. Though I'd say RiD had a notably lower budget than Prime. I wonder if Cyberverse is still being animated in Japan or if Hasbro's doing it all in-house now. :confused: If it is being done in Japan then it must be done on a shoestring budget to produce what looks more to me like Flash animation. :/

Consider Bumblebee

RiD's not my favourite thing, but one thing that I did really, really like about it was how they tried to develop the character of Bumblebee. At the end of TF Prime Bumblebee regained his voice and had a sudden personality change into being a more mature character (kinda dumb for a Cosmic MacGuffin to change a character's personality, but G1 did the same thing with Hot Rod/Rodimus Prime ;)). In Prime's absence Bumblebee took command and in TF RiD we see Bumblebee step up again as Autobot leader. Even when Prime returned he didn't usurp Bumblebee and resume his role as leader. This was important and I'm glad that they didn't just return Optimus Prime to the status quo. I quite liked how RiD was not an "Optimus vs Megatron" show.

Forwards not backwards

The show needs to go forwards, not backwards. This was one thing that G1 did that many other 80s cartoons didn't (e.g. Challenge of the Go-Bots etc.). Because this is what the G1 cartoon basically gave us as kids:
* Season 1: Basic narrative of a limited cast of warring robots stationed on Earth.
* Season 2: Stories become more complex. The cast expands and some episodes explore various themes - e.g. The Gold Lagoon presents a powerful environmental message, and The God Gambit explores the effects between religious exploitation and society etc.
* Season 3: The story is no longer predominantly set on Earth. It is the future of 12 years ago and humanity has joined the Cybertronians in being a member of an intergalactic federation. The Decepticons are no longer the sole recurring threat to our heroes as they are forced to reconcile with the very origins of their species.
* Season 4: War and peace.

And we did see the current Aligned series take similar steps.
* Prime Season 1: The Autobots fight a covert war with the Decepticons on Earth. Dark Energon is a recurring theme which reveals the season finale that Earth is actually Unicron.
* Prime Season 2: The Earth had been seeded with ancient Cybertronian artifacts in the distant past. A quest ensues on both sides to acquire these artefacts, especially the Omega Keys which the Decepticons use in an attempt to Cyberform Earth.
* Prime Season 3: More dark secrets from the Cybertronians' past come back to haunt them with the rise of the Predacons. The war ends, Cybertron is restored and the Decepticon faction is disbanded.
* RiD Season 1: Bumblebee leads a small team of Autobots on Earth to recapture escaped Decepticon convicts. The story culminates in the arrival of The Fallen who had been manipulating members of the Earth-bound Decepticon Remnant.
* RiD Season 2: A Decepticon Remnant Coalition work towards establishing an Earth-based sanctuary. They are ultimately defeated and their slaves are emancipated.
* RiD Season 3: New threats emerge from the shadows as the Stunticons arrive forming their own gang, and Soundwave works to return from the Shadowzone. On Cybertron, a group of Decepticons disguised as Autobots have infiltrated Autobot command and have wrested control of Cybertron from the inside. Hail Hydra.

And note: all of these shows were aimed at kids. EVERY Transformers TV series has been aimed at kids. The difference is that good shows don't talk down to kids. Car Robot was very much aimed at a very young audience and there were many very silly moments but it wasn't condescending in tone (Beast Wars II on the other hand...).

Now granted we've only seen a short clip and maybe Cyberverse may surprise us yet when the show actually airs. I hope that my misgivings about the show do prove to be unwarranted. But the best way for a show to silence its critics is just by producing good, quality stories. This is what Beast Wars did. That show came along amidst a LOT of fan protest and outcry ("Trukk Not Munky!"), but it soon silenced its critics just being being really, really good! I dare Cyberverse to do the same.

Impress me.

BigTransformerTrev

14th August 2018, 09:16 AM

Consider Bumblebee

RiD's not my favourite thing, but one thing that I did really, really like about it was how they tried to develop the character of Bumblebee. At the end of TF Prime Bumblebee regained his voice and had a sudden personality change into being a more mature character (kinda dumb for a Cosmic MacGuffin to change a character's personality, but G1 did the same thing with Hot Rod/Rodimus Prime ;)). In Prime's absence Bumblebee took command and in TF RiD we see Bumblebee step up again as Autobot leader. Even when Prime returned he didn't usurp Bumblebee and resume his role as leader. This was important and I'm glad that they didn't just return Optimus Prime to the status quo. I quite liked how RiD was not an "Optimus vs Megatron" show.

I think we will find that this version of Bee is supposed to correlate somewhat with the Movie one coming out later in the year. Hence why he is talking through the radio again. I would not be surprised to find that Movie Bbee has amnesia too and they have inadvertently revealed a plot point :rolleyes:

GoktimusPrime

14th August 2018, 09:47 AM

:confused:

When TF Prime was being developed, Ironhide was going to be a member of the Earth bound Autobots. But upon discovering that he would be killed by Sentinel Prime in Dark of the Moon, the writers decided to replace him with Bulkhead to help establish to kids that this was not the same continuity. But the Prime Ironhide design was made and the toy was later released (and repainted as Kup).

BigTransformerTrev

14th August 2018, 11:58 AM

I think we will find that this version of Bee is supposed to correlate somewhat with the Movie one coming out later in the year. Hence why he is talking through the radio again. I would not be surprised to find that Movie Bbee has amnesia too and they have inadvertently revealed a plot point :rolleyes:

:confused:

When TF Prime was being developed, Ironhide was going to be a member of the Earth bound Autobots. But upon discovering that he would be killed by Sentinel Prime in Dark of the Moon, the writers decided to replace him with Bulkhead to help establish to kids that this was not the same continuity. But the Prime Ironhide design was made and the toy was later released (and repainted as Kup).

I'm not suggesting the same continuity. Unless Windblade and Thundercracker somehow show up in the flick and Blitzwing shows up in the cartoon there is no chance of that.

What I am saying is they are trying to make the movie Bbee and the new cartoon Bbee at least similar. Movie Bbee will be talking through the radio so now they are making cartoon Bbee once again talk through the radio, so it's all a bit less confusing for younger viewers as that's what Bbee does (apparently :rolleyes:). I can't think of any other reason that he would lose his ability to talk after RID. It's like when Prime came out - it wasn't ever mean to be the movie continuity but since there were movies in cinemas where Bbee couldn't talk, they made the cartoon version of him do the same.

It is of course pure speculation on my part that the fact that the new cartoon Bbee has amnesia might also mean that Movieverse Bbee has amnesia, but I do think it's a possibility and one we may see play out in December. Will just have to wait and see for that one.

Extra Thought: This also could be why Windblade is aking Bbee if he knows where the Allspark is. Since the upcoming movie is a prequel, it stands to reason they haven't found the Allspark yet. So once again, not the same continuity, but similar themes spread across both the new cartoon and new flick, especially since both are aimed at audiences younger than they usually are so will be viewed by a lot of kids new to the franchise.

UltraMarginal

14th August 2018, 03:50 PM

So much drama!

Like Trent said, sometimes it's the idea that's selling well, rather than the actual toy. I remember having plenty of fun battles with my transformers that didn't require a whole lot of articulation.

I know of several instances where co-workers (Engineers of different breeds so you'd expect them to be able to nut their way through most problems) have brought in Deluxe transformers for me to transform for their kids, or have at least asked me for advice, or where I've visited someone's house and in the toy box is a half transformed mangled heap of 'robar' with missing doors or wheels because it was too hard and got left at the bottom of the stack.

Price point is what they can charge and have people buy them at, sure, we feel it's expensive, but it's the visual appeal that supports the price.
Plastic is cheap (https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/plastic-pellets-masterbatch-black-hdpe-plastic_60768076265.html?spm=a2700.7724857.normalL ist.10.626b52c3PedVf6&s=p), and does not contribute to the overall price (https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/ABS-plastic-granules-pellets-price_60684360270.html?spm=a2700.7724857.normalLis t.46.50c526b8Z7mDte) of a toy in any significant meaningful way.

Most of the deluxe and voyager toys we see on shelves probably have a dollars worth of plastic in them. if that.

The size of a toy in it's box, makes it more expensive to ship because it takes up more space, but that's about the extent of the effect on price that the size of a toy has.

If they can reduce engineering hours and mould/part count there is a lot of money to be saved there. If they can then charge a premium for 50% of their product line and still make a profit off the remainder of the line when it's discounted to Reject shop prices, they've done their job.

Longevity of brand, is something that they are probably (should be) working on, but if they can keep that up with Studio Series, and Masterpiece and the Generations style lines, why wouldn't they milk the brains out of lines like this? especially when they are producing toys that are easy to play with.

How many of you have heard the story of the parent buying the expensive toy, only to have it discarded for the box it came in... ? I'm pretty sure that's still a thing.

Perhaps, simpler toys that require a bit more imagination is something the world needs, and the transformers toy brand is doing just that.

GoktimusPrime

14th August 2018, 09:24 PM

The unique aesthetic styles of these "kiddified" (stylised) series kinda makes them "incompatible" (for want of a better word) with other Transformers series. You can't really play with your Animated toys with figures from other series -- it looks weird. Same with Prime and RiD (which is odd because they're meant to be part of the same continuity and even putting these toys next to each other looks strange).

It also kinda takes away the "robots in disguise" magic because they look like they belong in a cartoon rather than the real world. One cool thing about a lot of TFs from previous series is that they look like they could be living among us. You get a Bumblebee that looks like a VW Beetle then you see a yellow VW Beetle in real life and suddenly you imagine that it could be a robot. Even many of the unlicensed vehicle modes look like they could be real vehicles. But the more stylised alt modes become the less convincing they feel as being part of our world.

And yeah, it also means that it's harder to blend these toys with other series.
e.g. TFP Knockout appears in the IDW comics as a Carcerian, but his stylisation makes him kinda stick out like a sore thumb compared to other Transformers, even other Carcerians (although you could very well make the same argument about Obsidian and Fat Tankor, and indeed the odd stylisation was a big bone of contention with Beast Machines). I absolutely love Animated Blurr - he's my favourite Blurr toy. But his highly stylised cartoon aesthetic means that I can't really mix him in with my CHUG toys because he just sticks out too badly. Or take Animated Arcee vs Generations Arcee -- Animated Arcee is arguably a better designed toy being not a shellformer, but she just doesn't blend with CHUG's G1 aesthetic. Generations Arcee on the other hand blends so well that you could put her next to your G1 toys and she'd look like she belongs. Same with POTP Slash. In fact, I posted comparative group shots of my G1 and CHUG Dinobots on another forum, and in my G1 group shot I snuck in Slash and didn't say anything. Nobody picked me up on it. She blends in that well!

And aesthetics aside, these are really just badly, badly designed toys. Even if they were based directly on their G1 designs they would still be rubbish.

Trent

14th August 2018, 10:09 PM

GoktimusPrime

14th August 2018, 11:56 PM

As eclectic as G1 was, it was all still based on the Japanese mecha aesthetic. Diaclone, Microman, Macross, Dorvack, Beetras etc. all shared that common element, as did later Transformers toys made for Transformers. When you start deviating from this orthodox design core then that's when it becomes I suppose a bit weirder to mix and match the toys with G1. But don't get me wrong, deviating from the standard core isn't necessarily a bad thing. Beast Wars did this and was very successful. And you could argue that it was essential for Beast Wars to move away from the Japanese mecha aesthetic because it had already horribly failed to revive Transformers during the G2 years.

But look... design aesthetics is a pretty superficial thing, and ultimately if the toy is good then it's something that we can easily overlook. Again, as Beast Wars has proven. :) What really gets me with these Cyberverse toys isn't so much that they're different... it's that they're crap^sub-par. :( Honestly, if they made a really G1-accurate looking Starscream toy with the same design philosophy as Cyberverse Warrior Starscream, then the toy would still suck! If you look at my reviews and criticisms of the toys, none of them stem from, "Because look different." It's more to do with things like lacking articulation or being compromised by gimmicks or the lameness of the gimmicks etc. These are criticisms that I would still hold for any Transformer toy, and indeed we do have dodgy toys in every TF line including G1 (Battlechargers and Firecons, anyone?).

I guess the main difference is that other lines have been mixed bags - you have great figures, terrible figures and everything in between. So far I've only seen disappointing figures from Cyberverse. Not a single one of these toys have felt like they were worth buying. It's just been really consistently disappointing.

As for value for money, sure, our toys are overpriced. But even using the general standard price and quality of the average Transformer we can see that Cyberverse toys fall short. I deliberately took comparison pictures with previous Deluxe Class figures from the same Aligned Continuity. I didn't compare them with CHUG and I didn't compare them with Voyagers or anything else above the Deluxe Class. I tried as much as I could to compare apples with apples. And even there we can see that these aren't very good apples.

Deluxe Aligned Starscreams
https://image.ibb.co/dm2kgK/CYB_starscream03a.jpg

Deluxe Aligned Bumblebees
https://image.ibb.co/e1orMK/CYB_bumblebee03.jpg

Deluxe Aligned Optimus Primes
https://image.ibb.co/m0nkgK/CYB_optimus03.jpg

Deluxe Aligned Shockwaves
https://image.ibb.co/hR7J1K/CYB_shockwave03.jpg

Now I've sold my Dark of the Moon Ultimate Optimus Prime, which would completely smash the Cyberverse Ultimate Optimus Prime. But then again, the old Ultimate Class was more than double the price of the current one, so it's probably not a fair comparison. There's never been a $60 price point before. The nearest ones are Voyagers ($50) and Ultras ($70). I think that Ultras vastly outclass these new Ultimates - the fact that Ultra Optimus Primal still holds his ground pretty well against Masterpiece Optimus Primal speaks volumes about the quality of that toy design.
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y227/goktimusprime/Transformers/Masterpiece%20Optimus%20Primal/mp_beastconvoy08_zpsr4kyjsuw.jpg
And I'd wager that Ultra Megatron would still hold up well against the upcoming MP figure - relative to price point of course.

But how do the New Ultimates compare with the next size class down? How do they compare with the Voyagers? Well, see for yourself, and again I'm comparing Aligned with Aligned...

Voyager and Ultimate Aligned Megatrons
https://image.ibb.co/gUTvT9/CYB_ULT_Megatron2.jpg

Voyager and Ultimate Aligned Optimus Primes
https://image.ibb.co/mDZDFp/CYB_ULT_OP5.jpg

Optimus Prime especially isn't a terrible toy per se, but for a $60 I would expect those headlights to be able to get out of the way to expose the fists and for the toy to have a gun. Megatron should have elbows and an accessory (e.g. gun or sword... something!). The Legion Class toys from TF Prime have accessories and they're only $8 each! :eek: And speaking of Legions, what is up with the Cyberverse Legions only half transforming? What kid wants to play with a robot that only transforms halfway into a vehicle?!? :confused: Imagine if that happened during our childhood? Imagine if Hasbro in the 1980s released G1 toys that only half transformed.

https://image.ibb.co/hb1t6U/temp.jpg
"I'm not an alien robot, I'm cleverly in disguise!"

Bemblebuu

15th August 2018, 10:11 AM

I'm with you, Goktimus. These Cyberverse figures are bad. If it wasn't for the packaging, the figures would not look out of place at a $2 shop.

Hasbro are ripping people off plain and simple, and even if they have always been, these Cyberverse figures blatantly take ripping people off to a new level.

GoktimusPrime

15th August 2018, 11:13 AM

Hasbro are a company and they are in business to make money, as we all are in our respective occupations. And a lot more goes into making a toy than the raw cost of materials and manufacturing. I get it. But at least give your clients value for money. I have issue with paying full price for a toy if I feel that it's worth paying for.

GoktimusPrime

15th August 2018, 08:10 PM

I saw the Ultra Class toys at Target today. These are "open packaged" in robot mode, so I could get a close look and touch.
Oh... my... flipping... god...
I couldn't even bring myself to impulse buy one of them like I have with the Warriors and Ultimates. Grimlock was the most tempting. I did scan him and was going to buy him, but my Voice of Reason(TM) came and kicked me in the janglies and forced me to put him back on the shelf.

The toys do NOT look like Ultras. They wouldn't even pass for very good Deluxes. I had a close look at Grimlock and Starscream and couldn't see any knee joints. I tried turning Grimlock's head and it wouldn't budge - so apparent lack of head articulation. All on a set of $40 figures.

My very first Beast Wars toy was an Ultra Class. Found it in 1996 sitting on a shelf at some obscure variety store (I didn't find BW toys at majors until 1997). It was Optimus Primal (below, left).
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y227/goktimusprime/Transformers/Masterpiece%20Optimus%20Primal/mp_beastconvoy08_zpsr4kyjsuw.jpg
The Cyberverse Ultras are $40 which is about how much the BW Ultras cost.

"BUT---!"
Okay, okay, it's probably not fair for me to compare Cyberverse Ultras with previous Ultras (the most recent being the Universe Ultras like Silverbolt, Onslaught etc. which were at the $70 price point). So let's compare them with something of near equivalent value, which I would say is the Voyager Class (typical RRP $50, but it's not unusual to find them for $45 or less). And this was how my Voice of Reason(TM) delivered its swift kick. Because I was thinking about walking over the the counter to buy Ultra Grimlock thinking that this was "only a $40 toy" and that I can't really compare it with previous Ultras. But then my Voice of Reason(TM) told me that for an extra $5-10 I could just go and buy POTP Voyager Grimlock. And as much as POTP Voyager Grimlock doesn't personally appeal to me, it is much better value for money than blowing $40 on Cyberverse Ultra Grimlock!

Seriously. If I were a kid today looking to buy Grimlock, and let's say my parents agreed to spend $40... I'd most likely try to convince them to spend a few more dollars on POTP Grimlock instead. I would beg and even promise to be extra good or do additional chores or study harder at school etc. I know this because I used to do this a fair number of times when I was a kid in the 80s and my mum might've only been willing to spend enough money to by a cheaper Machine Man but I wanted a more expensive Transformer. Even if it meant buying fewer toys - like she might say, "You can have 2 Machine Men or 1 Transformer" -- I chose 1 Transformer. If I were a kid today with a limited budget (as children do with no disposable income) and I really wanted a Grimlock toy? Yeah, I'd take that 1 POTP Grimlock over the Cyberverse Grimlock plus another toy. And if I were doing birthday or Xmas shopping and my parents were feeling more generous? You bet your asteroid I'd be asking for the better and dearer toy. Quality over quantity. :) As Trev said, it really feels like these toys are assuming that kids have low standards.

SharkyMcShark

16th August 2018, 11:55 AM

I just can't quite understand what this toyline is being done in service of. Are these figures really going to bring new collectors into the line?

I think that we're having a hard time adjusting as collectors purely on the basis that this is the toyline for the main ongoing television fiction of the series, and the toys are PreSkool level at best. Granted, RiD2015 was a step down, but the toylines for Prime and Animated were at the level of the simultaneously released movie/generations figures.

-snip-

The only part of those Ultras I've seen that even remotely tickles me is the faux macross style missile spam gimmick on Starscream.

GoktimusPrime

16th August 2018, 12:50 PM

I have no idea who the target market for these Cyberverse toys are. They're being pitched at school-aged children but are clearly below their engagement level, yet the engineering is honestly still the level for most preschoolers. To put it bluntly, they're too simple for kids but too fiddly for infants (because they still require a level of fine motor dexterity that's beyond what your typical toddler can do. Infants typically hold a pencil or crayon with a palmer grip (https://connectability.ca/Garage/wp-content/uploads/article_images/finemotor4-55.gif) - either a simple cylindrical grasp or a primitive digital grasp. Preschoolers will be starting to use a simplified tripod grip but it's not really until school age that most kids have developed the dexterity to even begin learning how to hold a pencil with a proper tripod grip (http://www.educationandbehavior.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Tripod-Grasp-4.png). And it's also more physically exhausting for smaller hands to manipulate smaller parts. This is why toys aimed at infants use larger parts - aside from preventing choking hazards, it's physically easier for smaller hands to manipulate them. Think about when you get a really tiny flat single stud Lego piece that's attached to another single stud piece and you want to separate those pieces. Sometimes it's not easy and you gotta use a strong grip to separate them. This is why Duplo uses larger pieces. It gives more more of a gripping surface that makes it easier for smaller hands to manipulate.

Similarly when we look at Rescue Bots we see that the parts that need to be manipulated for transformation are large and require less precise motor skills. Getting some of the Cyberverse pieces to tab into the slots can be just as tricky as on other Transformer toys. Watch any video review of Cyberverse Warrior Starscream and look at how the leg tabs slot into the chest when going to jet mode. Or Ultimate Optimus Prime's legs when transforming to truck mode. It's not simple! Buuuut it's not really challenging either in a fun way. It's just tricky because it's fiddly. Fiddly toys are not good toys for infants! Yet the toys are still too basic for children. What?! :confused:

And you're absolutely right. How are these toys going to bring new collectors into the line? Or how is it going to maintain current collectors to stay and not quit? Actually, the children who grew up with Transformers Prime are now teenagers. I wonder how many of them are still fans today?

Forget style for a moment. In terms of engineering I found that the early RiD toys weren't very strong, but the later figures got a lot better. By the time we got around to RiD Warrior Starscream, Blurr etc., the engineering had become actually very good. RiD Warrior Starscream is one of my favourite of the Aligned Warriors/Deluxes. He's a lot more solid than TFP Deluxe Starscream and he incorporates part of the cockpit into the chest (whereas on TFP it just sits above his butt as kibble). RiD Warrior Starscream turned out to be a better toy than I expected and engineering-wise, was a step up from TFP. Cyberverse Warrior Starscream is jump down. :(

Bemblebuu

16th August 2018, 01:47 PM

Thank goodness for 3rd party TF toys!

GoktimusPrime

16th August 2018, 04:45 PM

Thank goodness for 3rd party TF toys!
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y227/goktimusprime/avatars/th_shudder_zpsl5viij1f.gif (http://otca.com.au/boards/showpost.php?p=211&postcount=2)

SharkyMcShark

16th August 2018, 05:00 PM

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y227/goktimusprime/avatars/th_shudder_zpsl5viij1f.gif (http://otca.com.au/boards/showpost.php?p=211&postcount=2)

https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/67518191/give-in-to-your-anger.jpg

*waves Planet X Vulcun in your face*

griffin

16th August 2018, 08:14 PM

shockNwave

16th August 2018, 09:07 PM

Unfortunately, if TakaraTomy are now just a clone of Hasbro (no more alternative versions of Hasbro toys) and Hasbro are producing less dedicated-collector toys, with the focus being on Cyberverse, Rescue Bots and Movie toys (being mostly aimed at under 10s), the unauthorised toy producers are going to get a lot more popular in the next few years as fans look for more homage toys or toys of characters that have never been produced officially.
I may not support or advocate unauthorised toys, but I understand and accept why they exist and why the demand is growing... because Hasbro are almost giving up on catering to the dedicated collectors, by eliminating the fan convention and cutting back on exclusive toys, which are getting harder to acquire (really limited release in very few countries).

As Gok pointed out, the early 90's spelled the end for G1 due to lack of diversity and it looks like a lesson was learned as TFs became so diverse that the brand could handle damage caused by a persona non grata such as Michael Bay.
So if what you're saying stays true Griff, then that means there's a devolution towards an early 90's direction.

Could that be because the brand has become too diverse like Lego did to it's own detriment in the early 2000s?

GoktimusPrime

16th August 2018, 09:20 PM

So if what you're saying stays true Griff, then that means there's a devolution towards an early 90's direction.
I wouldn't go that far.

Remember that in the early 90s nearly half of the Transformers line was Action Masters. The only things you could buy were either Action Masters, Micromasters or early G1 reissues. But as far as new moulds were concerned, all we had were Action Masters and Micromasters. It starved the line of diversity.
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y227/goktimusprime/Transformers/Collection%202013/201302_g1-199091_zps81f5ef30.jpg

As terrible as these Cyberverse toys are, they're just one part of the 2018 assortment. We still have:
* Power of the Primes
* Studio Series
* Masterpiece (G1, BW & Movieverse)
* Bumbleformers
* Movie the Best
* SF2 x TFs
* Rescue Bots
* G1 reissues

The problem with Action Masters wasn't just that they were crap. It's that they were crap that dominated the toy line. Everywhere you went there were just Action Masters shelfwarming like nobody's business. Cyberverse only compromise a fraction of 2018's lineup. Now of course, this doesn't justify making rubbish toys like Cyberverse. Shelfwarmers hurt the brand. Okay, it's not as devastating a blow as Action Masters, but it sure isn't going to do the brand any favours.

FatalityPitt

16th August 2018, 09:29 PM

... because Hasbro are almost giving up on catering to the dedicated collectors, by eliminating the fan convention and cutting back on exclusive toys, which are getting harder to acquire (really limited release in very few countries).

The Generations line is pretty collector-orientated, and Hasbro said they had plans mapped out for the line until 2021 (https://www.seibertron.com/transformers/news/sdcc2017-plans-until-2021-only-slugslinger-in-wave-6-hidden-gimmicks-and-more-discovered-in-interview-with-hasbro-hasbrosdcc/39023/). But I suppose if Cyberverse bombs commercially and Hasbro makes a big enough loss, there's a possibility that some of those plans may get scrapped.

Kind of makes me wonder though - Cyberverse is not off to a good start, and if things get that bad; what will Hasbro do? Will they try to salvage it by producing better Cyberverse toys for later waves, or will they cut their losses and shutdown Cyberverse completely? Hopefully it'll be the former where they start to produce some good Cyberverse toys... (though I'm reluctant to bet on it)

shockNwave

17th August 2018, 05:37 PM

The Generations line is pretty collector-orientated, and Hasbro said they had plans mapped out for the line until 2021 (https://www.seibertron.com/transformers/news/sdcc2017-plans-until-2021-only-slugslinger-in-wave-6-hidden-gimmicks-and-more-discovered-in-interview-with-hasbro-hasbrosdcc/39023/). But I suppose if Cyberverse bombs commercially and Hasbro makes a big enough loss, there's a possibility that some of those plans may get scrapped.

Kind of makes me wonder though - Cyberverse is not off to a good start, and if things get that bad; what will Hasbro do? Will they try to salvage it by producing better Cyberverse toys for later waves, or will they cut their losses and shutdown Cyberverse completely? Hopefully it'll be the former where they start to produce some good Cyberverse toys... (though I'm reluctant to bet on it)

I hope you're right. The last time I recall Hasbro having to salvage a series was when they had to upgrade TF Prime to TF Prime Beast Hunters and an excellent move that was.
Yet when I look at Cyberverse it looks way too weak and as they say "First impressions count." Which is why Cyberverse has started as a dead horse and TF Prime started as a potential derby winner and became an actual derby winner.

griffin

17th August 2018, 05:58 PM

GoktimusPrime

17th August 2018, 08:15 PM

I hope you're right. The last time I recall Hasbro having to salvage a series was when they had to upgrade TF Prime to TF Prime Beast Hunters and an excellent move that was.
I don't know if Beast Hunters was a definitive step up from previous TF Prime waves. I initially wrote a rather lengthy "TL;DR" post, but for brevity's sake let's just say that BH has pros and cons when compared to previous TFP lines and on the whole I don't think that it's necessarily much better or worse. From an engineering/design POV of course.

The Generations line is pretty collector-orientated
It's aimed at both kids and adults. I've known kids who collect and play with Generations toys. There have been a few times when I've gone to pick up my daughter from school and have occasionally found kids playing with Generations toys. I remember one time seeing a boy upset because he couldn't find the weapon for his Combiner Wars Blackjack. His dad had no idea what the kid was talking about and just wanted to leave. I looked around and found the weapon dropped under a bush, so I grabbed it and ran after them to hand the weapon back. The kid was so relieved (and yes, I advised him not to bring TF weapons to school anymore). ;)

I had a student who was disappointed that Generations Trailcutter didn't come with a "gun" (aside from the two guns attached to his shield), so he found a 5mm post gun from another toy and gave it to his Trailcutter. I remember it sitting on his desk in class and I remarked that it wasn't his gun and he told me the story. :) He once showed me a photo of his collection - it's filled up an entire bookcase (just as mine did when I was in school).

My friend's kid who's in Year 3 told me that he's been looking for Titans Return Rewind but hasn't been able to find him anywhere. I've since managed to track one for him and when I SMSed the photo to his parents they told me that their kid was super excited because I'd found his grail figure. :)

So yeah, there are definitely kids who are collecting and playing with Generations toys.

FatalityPitt

18th August 2018, 06:18 PM

It's aimed at both kids and adults. I've known kids who collect and play with Generations toys. There have been a few times when I've gone to pick up my daughter from school and have occasionally found kids playing with Generations toys...

... So yeah, there are definitely kids who are collecting and playing with Generations toys.

That's interesting. There's no regular cartoon or show revolved around the Generations line (unless you count the online animated series by Machinima) and it still sells pretty strongly among younger fans. I surmised that the reason RiD 2015 figures (particularly the Warrior class figures) were relatively expensive was because some of the cost went into commissioning the RiD cartoon, and the purpose (I guess) of the cartoon was to get kids interested in the toys. Basically the cartoons are 25 minute toy commercials.

But if Generations can sell strongly without a regular show, then that makes me wonder - does Transformers need cartoons to sell the toys? Because if not, then maybe instead of investing money into commissioning the cartoons, they could instead allocate that money into producing more interesting and better quality toys. Or if Generations is their main bread and butter when it comes to Transformers, maybe they could dust off old cartoons from the 1980's and play those instead. Those are the shows more likely to feature characters who appear in the Generations line. Siege: War For Cybertron features Micromasters, so maybe Hasbro can buy the rights of Transformers Victory and Zone from Toei (if they haven't already), remaster those cartoons and show those instead of having a whole new cartoon produced from scratch.

Just some thoughts that sprang to mind while reading your post.

FatalityPitt

18th August 2018, 06:33 PM

The toy commercial in Singapore (https://www.facebook.com/TransformersSG/videos/219559155378153/) (that might end up on TV here) probably doesn't help impress people with this toyline, and some of the screenshots of the kid (http://news.tfw2005.com/2018/08/16/transformers-cyberverse-action-attackers-commercial-promotional-campaign-in-singapore-370122) will be meme-fodder for years to come.

"Get more WHOA" with Transformers Cyberverse... as in, whoa, don't buy those. :p

Nevermind the toys, forget the CGI Bumblebee in the background; that kid's acting is oscar-worthy! :D

http://news.tfw2005.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/08/Cyberverse-Action-Attackers-Commercial-05.png

GoktimusPrime

18th August 2018, 11:52 PM

While cartoons help, there have been numerous instances of Transformers managing fine or succeeding quite well without a cartoon.

Some examples include:

* Transformers - the non-cartoon years.
As you know, Transformers has never been out of production which is why fans like us have been able to continuously collect these toys since 1984. But we have certainly had years when there were no new cartoons on TV. In the West these would be: 1988-1995, 2002

* 1984 = in the United States the Transformers toyline debuted in early 1984. #1 of the comics didn't hit newsagents until May 8, but the cartoon didn't air until September 17. In spite of this, by the end of 1984 the Transformers toyline had grossed US$1.4 million in the USA alone. I don't know exactly what the pre and post cartoon sales were, but even if we were to attribute half of the sales to the cartoon, that would still mean that the toys alone raked in US$700,000, which would be a lot more if you adjusted for inflation today.

* 1996 = Beast Wars. History repeated itself. The TV series didn't properly begin until September 16, meaning that for most of this year the BW toys had to sell on their own power. By 1997 Beast Wars had become the third best selling action figure line after Toy Story and Star Wars.

* 2001 = Robots In Disguise, Australia. You'll remember when RiD came out here. It was months before the cartoon aired yet these toys were flying off shelves! Heck, how many of us were importing Car Robot toys in 2000 without having seen the anime and despite the AUD hitting record lows like 46US cents to the AUD.

At the end of the day, kids love good toys - with or without a cartoon. Many of us were purchasing G1 Transformers long before they ever appeared on the show. Come to think of it, the cartoon was largely irrelevant when it came to my collecting decisions as a kid. By the time a character appeared in an episode, I would either...
* Already own the toy
* Didn't own the toy but it was already on my want list
* Didn't own the toy but it was already on my skip list
Take Hot Rod and Rodimus Prime, just as 2 examples. I got Hot Rod months before I ever saw him on screen. And Rodimus Prime, being such a terrible figure, was on my skip list. Even after watching TFTM in cinemas I wasn't persuaded to get this toy. Years later I did get one because a friend of mine "grew out" of toys (har!) and gave his to me. ;) But I don't remember ever seeing a Transformer appear on screen and then feeling like I then suddenly wanted the toy.

I guess as a kid without a disposable income I couldn't afford to get toys just because I liked the show character. I got the toy because I liked the toy. I later filled in the gaps as more and more other kids around me "grew out" of Transformers and either gave away their collections or sold them cheaply. There's no way that I would make some of the impulsive purchasing decisions that I do now as an adult. :p The only real difference that the cartoon made on me was that I'd change the way that I'd voice or act a toy out after seeing them appear on the cartoon. Because before then I'd just give them some 'normal' voice, but then I'd adjust my voice for that character after hearing them on the cartoon. Wow, Seaspray sounds like Mer-Man now? Okay. ;)

Heck, we never had any Lego shows or movies in the 80s, and those toys were immensely popular. Yet so many other toylines with cartoons ended up failing.

BigTransformerTrev

19th August 2018, 07:26 AM

Nevermind the toys, forget the CGI Bumblebee in the background; that kid's acting is oscar-worthy! :D

http://news.tfw2005.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/08/Cyberverse-Action-Attackers-Commercial-05.png

That�s because he�s an experimental young teen who has just discovered his new toy has a long fiery tongue that forcefully thrusts out and upwards.

Trust me - it�ll be Grimlock wearing the look of shock on his face after that kids parents go out for the day :eek:

FatalityPitt

19th August 2018, 12:14 PM

While cartoons help, there have been numerous instances of Transformers managing fine or succeeding quite well without a cartoon....

... * 1996 = Beast Wars. History repeated itself. The TV series didn't properly begin until September 16, meaning that for most of this year the BW toys had to sell on their own power. By 1997 Beast Wars had become the third best selling action figure line after Toy Story and Star Wars....

...Heck, we never had any Lego shows or movies in the 80s, and those toys were immensely popular. Yet so many other toylines with cartoons ended up failing.

Oh yeah, I totally get that. That reminds me - When I was living in Malaysia in 1996, interest in Transformers had practically died by then, and all that was left on toy store pegs we're the less desirable G2 toys like Road Pig and Staxx. Suddenly these "Beast Wars" toys appeared. We had no idea what they were, except they looked like Transformers that turned into realistic animals. Without knowing a thing about Beast Wars (because the cartoon didn't air until the following year - 1997), I bought my first Beast Wars figure (Terrorsaur) and I thought the toy was amaaazzzing! It had more articulation than a Spider-man figure (thanks to the ball joints), it had weapon storage, and it looked good in both modes. I was instantly hooked, but because I was 10 at the time and my weekly allowance was limited; I bought mostly small basic figures like Iguanus, Rattrap, Razorbeast, etc. I never had the bigger figures like Optimus Primal, Megatron, Rhinox, etc. Even after the show aired, I still didn't have a strong desire to own those characters in toy form. From memory, my favourites (or the ones I played with the most) we're Razorbeast and Clawjaw, and neither we're on the show. I just found those figures to be really fun and they looked great.

I think while the cartoon might help sell toys to certain people, I don't think it's that strong a factor. It might be interesting to see Hasbro try something different where they release a new line of Transformers, but not invest heavily in commissioning a show around those toys. Instead they could try allocating the funds to making the toys better; so good that they sell themselves.

Thinking about it now, there's no shows or movies around Nerf Guns and Magic The Gathering, and yet those brands are still quite strong.

That�s because he�s an experimental young teen who has just discovered his new toy has a long fiery tongue that forcefully thrusts out and upwards.

Trust me - it�ll be Grimlock wearing the look of shock on his face after that kids parents go out for the day :eek:

At least the Grimlock toy won't break his heart. Girls can be quite cruel.

GoktimusPrime

19th August 2018, 04:03 PM

One point you bring up is that with Beast Wars, the majority of toys never appeared on the show. The downside with the higher cost of CG animation was that only a select number of toys could ever appear on the show. The BW cartoon was only ever a "sample showcase" of the toy line, unlike say G1 where almost every toy appeared in the cartoon until the show's cancellation. Obviously making characters appear in a cel animated cartoon is much cheaper and easier - you just draw the characters. No need to construct 3D models. And with Transformers they had to construct 2 models per character- 1 robot and 1 beast mode. Even Transformers Prime had a relatively limited cast with the Decepticon ranks fleshed out with identical Vehicon clones. Out of all the Predacons released during Beast Hunters only 3 of them ever appeared in the show.

I don't mind having a cartoon - it certainly does give the characters more exposure. But I would prefer if the cartoons served the toys rather than the toys serving the cartoons. Animators aren't engineers and expecting toy designers to work around animation models is a massive constraint. It's a constant challenge for Masterpiece figures, and one of the cool things with MPs is seeing how TakaraTOMY can work their engineering magic to try and make these toys as show-like as possible. But it literally comes at a cost; one that's out of reach for kids (and even some collectors). I would love to see the line just go back to being made as toys for toy's sake. Not toys as avatars of show models.

"That MP's really cheap!," said no-one about an MP's RRP ever. :p
(except for Hasbro's MP Soundwave)

I've been checking Ben Yee's reviews on Cyberverse (http://www.bwtf.com/toyreviews/cyberverse) which appraises these toys just within the confines of Cyberverse; so he disclaims that he's not measuring them up to the standard of other TF lines which is why some of the toys are given positive reviews. Yet I can see for about half of these toys he's still giving them negative reviews even when restricted to the confines of Cyberverse's standards! So unlike my reviews where I'm comparing them with other TF lines like CHUG, Prime and RID, Ben's avoiding that. He's focusing on just looking at them within the scope of Cyberverse, and even then some of these toys still fall short.

shockNwave

19th August 2018, 08:13 PM

I don't mind having a cartoon - it certainly does give the characters more exposure. But I would prefer if the cartoons served the toys rather than the toys serving the cartoons. Animators aren't engineers and expecting toy designers to work around animation models is a massive constraint. It's a constant challenge for Masterpiece figures, and one of the cool things with MPs is seeing how TakaraTOMY can work their engineering magic to try and make these toys as show-like as possible. But it literally comes at a cost; one that's out of reach for kids (and even some collectors). I would love to see the line just go back to being made as toys for toy's sake. Not toys as avatars of show models.

A case in point of animators (in this case live CG) not being engineers is in TLK, where in the case of Infernocus, instead of having the decepticons transforming into the combiner they morph into it.
It's just lazy and disrespectful towards the TF brand.

GoktimusPrime

19th August 2018, 10:00 PM

Totally agree.

The designs for most post-AOE Transformers are pretty lazy compared to pre-AOE. One of my pet peeves about the post-AOE designs is how they more or less morph between modes rather than parts-shift. The AOE Decepticons were terrible as "Tetris-formers," but the Autobots weren't a whole lot better either as their robot modes were sparse with alt mode kibble. Comparing the transformations of Optimus Prime...
Age of Extinction (https://youtu.be/ddK9Db65dO8?t=235); this is one of the better looking transformation sequences in AOE/TLK and yet it's still relatively lazy as the entire rear half of the truck is literally sucked up into Prime's back. And most of the rest of the truck parts just magically disappear. The end result for the toys is that they have a lot of truck kibble that they need to try and conceal. Early attempts gave us massive backpackformers; the "Calibre" retool just made the backpack detachable (which makes the robot look cool but it's basically cheating); and the TLK Voyager does an impressive job in absorbing much of the truck parts into the body (e.g. legs etc.), but still ends up with a backpack (albeit greatly reduced).
VS
"My name is Optimus Prime" (https://youtu.be/veyX-miC4VM?t=10); an absolutely amazing and epic transformation. We can see truck and robot parts shifting and realigning as he changes from truck to robot mode. We see windows, doors, wheels, tyres, fuel tanks, mirrors, lights etc. - a place for everything and everything in its place. And the result for toy designers is that this design was much easier to translate as action figures. The 2007 Leader Class Optimus Prime is a brilliant toy - easily the best Optimus Prime figure we had since 1995's Laser Optimus Prime (and that's a high standard to beat!). And as amazed as we were by this toy, HasTak outdid themselves again just 2 years later with the ROTF Leader Class figure, which has since been refined with the Buster Optimus Prime and DOTM Jetwing Optimus Prime retools/redecos. And of course, we more recently had MPM Optimus Prime. But even smaller versions of this toy such as the Voyagers, Deluxes and even the Legends Class figures were all really nice figures for their respective price points.
And this was a deliberate style choice on Michael Bay's part. Because in the earlier part of AOE, Bumblebee (60s Camaro) and Optimus Prime (Marmon 97) still partsformed like in the previous films, but after they scanned their new modes they went to morphing. :(

And yeah, Infernocus and Dragonstorm were the worst. Just a bunch of generic looking Transformers falling on top of each other to become messy looking gestalts. Looks more like piles of garbage having a m�nage � six et m�nage � douze respectively. *cough* In fact, let's have a look and compare...
Knights merging to form Dragonstorm (https://youtu.be/gNUmq_iDPC4?t=478) ... from a distance... it's a mess
Infernocons merge to form Infernocus (https://youtu.be/aMQkgsj2JT8?t=55) ... shrouded in smoke, who can even see what's happening? Cheap and lazy.
Constructicons merge to form Devastator (https://youtu.be/rib0V1Nscw8?t=14) visually spectacular! We know that animating this scene blew up some of ILM's computers! :eek: And to put things into perspective, animating the entire first movie took up about 15 terabytes of data. Animating ROTF took up over 140TB. I have long said that despite all of ROTF's flaws as a story, it is if nothing else a very visually spectacular film. The visual effects in this movie are nothing short of breath-taking. No-one can accuse the animation in this film as being "cheap and lazy," especially not the Devastator merge sequence. And I first saw this on the big screen at IMAX. Phwoar.

Ralph Wiggum

20th August 2018, 01:33 AM

And let�s not forget that Transformium building block shite they had with Galvatron, Stinger, and the rest in AoE. I�m glad they dropped that in TLK.

This is why I�m looking forward to the BB movie. Good old fashioned transforming...I hope.

shockNwave

20th August 2018, 05:30 PM

The Transformium crap has me thinking of The Lawnmower Man (1992). The scenes where he kills people by turning them into a mass of spheres that are then dispersed.
The Transformium sequences are worse than the Dragonstorm/Infernocus morph sequences.

Magnus

20th August 2018, 08:13 PM

Back to the toys: a while back I was trying to find a quote that said that Hasbro were deliberately simplifying toys in response to complaints that previous toys were too complex for their target audience. The one I found is from a January 2014 New York Times article about Hasbro (https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/20/business/media/hasbro-gives-its-transformers-toys-a-new-look.html) that cites among others CEO Brian Goldner and Joshua Lamb, senior design director for Transformers.

But as the brand evolved over the years, the toys became more complex, some involving dozens of steps to complete a single transformation. In the eyes of Brian D. Goldner, Hasbro�s chief executive, they had lost their magic.

�We�ve made incredibly sophisticated robots,� he said, �but it can be like a 1,000-piece puzzle.�

Enthralled by the special effects in three big-budget �Transformers� movies that enabled the robots to convert in a matter of seconds, Mr. Goldner decided the toys needed to return to their roots. So he challenged his design team to reconceive them. Now, on the 30th anniversary of the brand, Hasbro is revealing a new look for the toys, including simple maneuvers that will complete a transformation with the push of a button or flick of the wrist.

Mr. Lamb conceded that the brand had gotten a little off track over the years. �As new designers and engineers continued to work on this brand, it got more complicated,� he said. Hasbro will continue to make complex Transformers for adult fans who have collected the toys since their inception 30 years ago. But the new design is intended to re-engage parents and children, who found the transformations too challenging.

Granted, this was from 2014, but at least it gives Hasbro's reasoning for simplifying toys.

I personally don't care much for the Cyberverse line, but I can't help but wonder if collectors are 'missing the point' of it. It seems like collectors tend to fall into the trap of thinking Hasbro should be catering specifically to them, so when something comes along that is clearly intended for a younger audience, they deride it.

Because Hasbro have likely invested a lot into this line, I find it hard to imagine they haven't done market research - as Galvatran indicated - to try and ensure the line's success or at least minimise their losses.

dirge

20th August 2018, 08:20 PM

I personally don't care much for the Cyberverse line, but I can't help but wonder if collectors are 'missing the point' of it. It seems like collectors tend to fall into the trap of thinking Hasbro should be catering specifically to them, so when something comes along that is clearly intended for a younger audience, they deride it.

I agree that some of the toys had gotten very complex. DOTM Prime was a case in point. But I'm not sure happy-meal level deluxes are the right reaction. There's no cleverness in a $35 toy that matches the complexity of a $2 fast food trinket.

I'm an adult collector but I *remember* as a kid being impressed with the cleverness of G1 toys; Jazz, Dirge; Wheeljack.

I also remember being underwhelmed by the Sparkabots with their laughable transformations, poor robots modes and a gimmick that, frankly, didn't make up for such basic engineering.

Bemblebuu

20th August 2018, 09:13 PM

Hasbro can't make excuses for poor figures designs, no matter what era.

I imagine they give their Cyberverse designers bullet point directives, something like:

- 3 hinges max
- 2 rotation joints max
- 3 colours plastic max
- 3 shades paint max

- free coffee and donut for each reduction of the above

GoktimusPrime

20th August 2018, 09:36 PM

There are toys that are simple yet elegant in design. Take the flipchangers for example. Simple yet really clever one-step changers. But the robot modes aren't compromised as a result. Every Flipchanger has no fewer than 9 points of articulation, including some on ball and socket joints. Despite being extremely easy to transform toys they are still brilliant action figures. The original Terrorsaur remains my favourite BW Transformer. :)

And yeah, complex transforming toys can suck too if they're not done well. e.g. Big Convoy, BT Grimjack, MP5 etc.

It's not so much an issue of "simple vs complex," but rather an issue of quality vs crap.
Flipchangers = quality simple Transformers
Cyberverse = rubbish simple Transformers
MP39 Sunstreaker = quality complex Transformer
BT Grimlock = rubbish complex Transformer

FatalityPitt

20th August 2018, 10:52 PM

I don't think complexity is a strong factor in measuring a transformer's quality. Sure the level of complexity needs to be appropriate for the age demographic being catered for, but just because a transformer is complex or simple doesn't necessarily mean it's good or bad.

There's a tonne of over-complicated transformers that suck spheres, e.g. Universe 2.0 Galvatron and TFP Knock Out (Deluxe class). But there's some transformers that are complex but satisfying like TR Triggerhappy and Kickback. On the flip side, there's heaps of really good transformers that are simple. I'm a big fan of the Legion class, mainly because they're quick to transform, they're portable, and cheap. In fact the Legion G2 Megatron is an all-time favourite of mine (I literally wish I bought 5 when Target was still stocking it). There's many types of Legion figures I'd recommend for a younger kid (if not a one-step-changer or a RescueBot).

I think the main problem with Cyberverse, as many have called out on this thread, is that these toys aren't worth the money they're charging. If Hasbro are going to simplify the transformation, reduce the parts count, and use less plastic; then the price needs to reflect that. The Warrior Class Optimus Prime - if there wasn't a better toy available, I'd probably buy it for a 5-year old who wanted an Optimus Prime, but for $35; it's a rip-off in my opinion.

GoktimusPrime

20th August 2018, 11:13 PM

The Warrior Class Optimus Prime - if there wasn't a better toy available, I'd probably buy it for a 5-year old who wanted an Optimus Prime, but for $35; it's a rip-off in my opinion.
Aside from the fact that these toys for ages 6+, I think you've also highlighted another problem with Cyberverse. Even if the toys were cheaper, they'd only be worth considering if there was nothing better around. But there is. And not just in terms of Transformers, but in terms of toys in general. Hypothetically speaking, if there were no better Transformers around then people would be more likely to --- wait for it --- stop collecting Transformers (blasphemy, I know). Bad toys might be more likely to push people away from the brand especially when there's nothing better around.
e.g. the story of Action Masters. Apparently some people were devastated to the point that they actually stopped buying Transformers after Action Masters came to dominate the G1 toy line in the early 90s.

But so long as more lucrative choices exist for consumers then Cyberverse is unlikely to thrive. And a good toyline is one that sells well despite the existence of strong competition.
e.g. Beast Wars etc.

FatalityPitt

21st August 2018, 12:36 AM

Aside from the fact that these toys for ages 6+, I think you've also highlighted another problem with Cyberverse. Even if the toys were cheaper, they'd only be worth considering if there was nothing better around. But there is. And not just in terms of Transformers, but in terms of toys in general. Hypothetically speaking, if there were no better Transformers around then people would be more likely to --- wait for it --- stop collecting Transformers (blasphemy, I know). Bad toys might be more likely to push people away from the brand especially when there's nothing better around.
e.g. the story of Action Masters. Apparently some people were devastated to the point that they actually stopped buying Transformers after Action Masters came to dominate the G1 toy line in the early 90s.

But so long as more lucrative choices exist for consumers then Cyberverse is unlikely to thrive. And a good toyline is one that sells well despite the existence of strong competition.
e.g. Beast Wars etc.

I think one of the amazing things about Beast Wars was that it was such a fresh and innovative idea that was totally unexpected at the time, and they were eager to make good toys.

Another thing with Cyberverse, and it might just be me, but I got this feeling that I couldn't put my finger on until now - it all seems contrived. When I look at these toys, I feel like Hasbro came up with the ideas and designs by plugging variables into a formula. Their choices were made by the numbers. Even when looking at the toys IRL, I can't sense much enthusiasm from the designer/engineer. I think when we buy or consume something, like a toy or a meal at the restaurant, it'd be nice to know that the person who made it was enthusiastic about what he or she was making.

shockNwave

21st August 2018, 05:12 PM

I think one of the amazing things about Beast Wars was that it was such a fresh and innovative idea that was totally unexpected at the time, and they were eager to make good toys.

Another thing with Cyberverse, and it might just be me, but I got this feeling that I couldn't put my finger on until now - it all seems contrived. When I look at these toys, I feel like Hasbro came up with the ideas and designs by plugging variables into a formula. Their choices were made by the numbers. Even when looking at the toys IRL, I can't sense much enthusiasm from the designer/engineer. I think when we buy or consume something, like a toy or a meal at the restaurant, it'd be nice to know that the person who made it was enthusiastic about what he or she was making.

This reminds me of why MTV has such a bad reputation among music connoisseurs. Because those programming the music just want to make a buck and have no passion for the music as long as greed is fulfilled thus you see/hear all these talentless mime artists and the existence of shareholder music (not to be confused with actual music).:mad:
Beautiful on the surface but not very bright beneath just like a Transformer that looks impressive but has an overly simple transformation. Paying for one of these toys is like paying to see one of those aforementioned mime artists.:mad:

FatalityPitt

21st August 2018, 08:48 PM

This reminds me of why MTV has such a bad reputation among music connoisseurs. Because those programming the music just want to make a buck and have no passion for the music as long as greed is fulfilled thus you see/hear all these talentless mime artists and the existence of shareholder music (not to be confused with actual music).:mad:
Beautiful on the surface but not very bright beneath just like a Transformer that looks impressive but has an overly simple transformation. Paying for one of these toys is like paying to see one of those aforementioned mime artists.:mad:

It's sadly quite a common trend in a lot of industries :(

A lot of entertainment companies are run by accountants and salespeople who likely aren't fans of their own company's products.

As Mark Hamill said; "..it doesn't matter if it's good as long as it makes money. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3S2zsCaOOmE)"

GoktimusPrime

21st August 2018, 10:47 PM

Beautiful on the surface but not very bright beneath just like a Transformer that looks impressive but has an overly simple transformation. Paying for one of these toys is like paying to see one of those aforementioned mime artists.:mad:
Cyberverse toys don't even look good. :(

shockNwave

22nd August 2018, 07:35 PM

Cyberverse toys don't even look good. :(

Sorry:o.Looks like I got carried away. So on that note Cyberverse is worse than the mime artist music industry and that's saying a lot.

SMHFConvoy

22nd August 2018, 08:56 PM

*sigh*

We, the collectors have studio series and we have generations.

Cyberverse, cyber battalion and authentics are cheaper alternatives with easier transformations why? Because a cheaper price point means that it entices parents to buy something that can stand up to rough play, that a non transformers fan can convert for their kids if they get stuck and look like a star, but the really big reason is:

Everyone who was there from the start is now in their 40's and we're not getting younger. To continue the brand you need an intermediate jumping on point: RID, cyberverse, authentics and cyber battlion.

Buy them if you must but, these lines aren't targeted at us.

I'm sure someone will say, "but my child of an arbitrary amount of months and seconds is brilliant and does my taxes", good for you, glad you have such a brilliant child but what about everyone else? What about the casual fan who just wants a cool Megatron for their shelf with out spending too much? Authentics or the 4yo who's seen all the bayverse movies (why? I do not know) and wants a Bumblebee or the person in the office after a cheap desk toy: Cyberverse.

These lines are created for a broader audience, not particularly for us, not really for anyone who is well versed in this brand's mythology. This is a coordinated effort to grow the audience like when Coke introduced the slim can: so they can get their product into
small hands.

Personally I like the cyberverse scout class grimlock, nice sculpt I don't really care about it's strange half mode.

Bemblebuu

22nd August 2018, 09:23 PM

BigTransformerTrev

22nd August 2018, 09:43 PM

This reminds me of why MTV has such a bad reputation among music connoisseurs. Because those programming the music just want to make a buck and have no passion for the music as long as greed is fulfilled thus you see/hear all these talentless mime artists and the existence of shareholder music (not to be confused with actual music).:mad:

Well I think it's well documented now that even though the 'audience' is said to be 18 to 25, the actual target demographic and main bulk of MTV's audience is 12 to 15 year old girls with disposable incomes from their parents. Hence why its all reality TV and lip-synchers rather than, you know, real singers and musicians. Makes it easier for product placement :rolleyes:

Sniff... and its why the killed Celebrity Deathmatch. :(

One of the issues already talked about in this thread (numerous times), is that Cyberverse are not cheap

^This

Galvatran

22nd August 2018, 10:15 PM

All this talk of (high) price is redundant in today's world. We have dialysis machines & life support equipment.

BigTransformerTrev

23rd August 2018, 07:22 AM

All this talk of (high) price is redundant in today's world. We have dialysis machines & life support equipment.

At my age, with my habits and the life I�ve led, no one wants to buy my organs.

Hell, no one even wants to rent them for an hour in a sleazy motel anymore :(:p

UltraMarginal

23rd August 2018, 09:46 AM

Everyone who was there from the start is now in their 40's and we're not getting younger.

YOU OFFEND, SIR!!

that's me next year... :(

Bemblebuu

23rd August 2018, 10:12 AM

Another thing with Cyberverse not being targeted at 'the collector/ over 40 crowd'; why not target EVERYBODY???

Make them hardy enough to withstand rough play from the young 'uns, make them simple to transform (complex transformation does not equal good), make them worth their price, and make them look good.

Doesn't it make more sense ($$$) to market any toyline, especially Transformers which has a rabid old school fanbase, to appeal to its entire audience young and old???

GoktimusPrime

23rd August 2018, 11:53 AM

One of the issues already talked about in this thread (numerous times), is that Cyberverse are not cheap.

Cheap can be good, cheap can be bad. Pricey can be good, pricey can be bad. Cyberverse is just bad...in my opinion. :D
↑ This so much

Remember when the first live action movie toys gave us Fast Action Battlers? They were far more simpler versions but at the same price as Deluxes. The Deluxes sold well while the FABs pegwarmed.

I'm sure someone will say, "but my child of an arbitrary amount of months and seconds is brilliant and does my taxes", good for you, glad you have such a brilliant child but what about everyone else? What about the casual fan who just wants a cool Megatron for their shelf with out spending too much? Authentics or the 4yo who's seen all the bayverse movies (why? I do not know) and wants a Bumblebee or the person in the office after a cheap desk toy: Cyberverse.
Or we can also remember when WE were children collecting Transformers and preferring superior toys over the simpler ones.

e.g. early 1990s where Action Masters shelfwarmed and the Classic reissues sold strongly

We had toys like Action Master Sideswipe and Classic Sideswipe on shelves at the same time. Guess which toy gave me buyer's remorse. ;) Especially as a kid buying these toys with limited pocket money.