MP Chromedome?

Gallery of Wonder Festival pics here.

Chromedome looks convertable, but lack of sculpting/detailing on all those flat panels has me thinking it isn't created by Hasbro/TT.
It'd be a nice touch to have some expansion of the line-up of characters in the MP line, but perhaps it is a bit outside of the scope of (elite) characters that deserve to get the "centerpiece" display figure treatment of TF:Masterpiece. (as in, compile a list of the 100 most significant characters in TFs history, and feature MP versions of those at the top of the list, as if it rewards their status with that style of toy)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulbot

He's not obscure to Japanese fans and Masterpiece toys are made for Japanese fans first.

---

+1 QFT :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kup

Yeah but I think that in order to profit from a complex mold like an MP, they need to also have the character marketable to a Hasbro market. That is why I think that Hasbro would not let it go ahead, specially at this scale.

Takara would have done it just for a Japanese market but I am not sure that Takara-Tomy would just be satisfied with local Japanese revenue and would like to join develop it with Hasbro.

---

Masterpiece Megatron was made exclusive for the Japanese market. Actually, all the MPs are, Hasbro just decides to adapt them for their market later - which is typical of how Japanese TF moulds end up in Hasbro markets (and vice versa). Also remember that TakaraTOMY and Hasbro are contractually forbidden from "cross contaminating" each other's market - i.e. they're not legally not allowed to take each other's market in consideration when developing/marketing toys. They're only allowed to look at their own respective markets. Obviously there have been some instances where both parties have collaborated on a common toy or line (e.g. Armada/Micron Legend) -- but certainly a lack of popularity in the Hasbro market is something that TakaraTOMY are not allowed to take into consideration when developing a toy for their own market.

And Masterpiece has always been developed for Takara's market first, then Hasbro just adapts them for their market (with the exception of Megatron). Hasbro's very reactive and never pro-active when it comes to MPs IMHO.

It's extremely show accurate and looks bloody well done, a masterpiece it isn't however. :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hursticon

a masterpiece it isn't however. :cool:

---

Then again, neither are most of the toys actually released as Masterpieces...

(With the exception of MP-8X King Grimlock. :p)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sky Shadow

(With the exception of MP-8X King Grimlock. :p)

---

*Shakes fist* - "Yomtov!!!". :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoktimusPrime

+1 QFT :)


Masterpiece Megatron was made exclusive for the Japanese market. Actually, all the MPs are, Hasbro just decides to adapt them for their market later - which is typical of how Japanese TF moulds end up in Hasbro markets (and vice versa). Also remember that TakaraTOMY and Hasbro are contractually forbidden from "cross contaminating" each other's market - i.e. they're not legally not allowed to take each other's market in consideration when developing/marketing toys. They're only allowed to look at their own respective markets. Obviously there have been some instances where both parties have collaborated on a common toy or line (e.g. Armada/Micron Legend) -- but certainly a lack of popularity in the Hasbro market is something that TakaraTOMY are not allowed to take into consideration when developing a toy for their own market.

And Masterpiece has always been developed for Takara's market first, then Hasbro just adapts them for their market (with the exception of Megatron). Hasbro's very reactive and never pro-active when it comes to MPs IMHO.

---

My point is not about cross contaminating markets but of joint development of toys that will eventually suit both markets which we do know happens. MP Megatron came in fairly early after Takara joined Tomy so it was already a work in progress from before. I honestly don't see Tomy putting such costs into a Japanese appeal only release with limited Hasbro marketability and weigh all the development costs. Takara would have done it but I don't think Tomy would.

Anyways by the looks of it, I am not sure that Chromedome is MP at all. It almost looks like a fan scratch build.

A co-developed toy doesn't happen unless one party approaches the other and says, "Hey, wanna co-develop a toy for both our markets?" "Yes. Yes I do." -- this is what happened with Armada/Micron Legend. But unless that happens, then the non-cross-contamination clause in their contracts prevents each party from taking each other's market into consideration when developing a toy or line.

Takara would have only done so if they had Hasbro's express consent; cos that's what a Takara exec told me, and that was in a conversation that occured in 2003, before their merger with TOMY.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoktimusPrime

A co-developed toy doesn't happen unless one party approaches the other and says, "Hey, wanna co-develop a toy for both our markets?" "Yes. Yes I do." -- this is what happened with Armada/Micron Legend. But unless that happens, then the non-cross-contamination clause in their contracts prevents each party from taking each other's market into consideration when developing a toy or line.

Takara would have only done so if they had Hasbro's express consent; cos that's what a Takara exec told me, and that was in a conversation that occured in 2003, before their merger with TOMY.

---

I am pretty sure that fairly recently in one of the Panels, it was stated that Hasbro comes up with the toy concepts which are then sent to Takara-Tomy for development into actual figures.

It would make sense that everything for the main market is being jointly developed now as they've had simultaneous parallel lines featuring the same molds for each one of their distinct markets. There hasn't been much of 'carrying over' of lines from one market to the other as it was with Takara (like RID for example) and more of joint development with the intention of simultaneous release into both markets.

Whatever the Takara guy told you could be obsolete by now since much changes after a company is acquired or merged into another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kup

I am pretty sure that fairly recently in one of the Panels, it was stated that Hasbro comes up with the toy concepts which are then sent to Takara-Tomy for development into actual figures.

---

That's different. While Hasbro often do conceptual designs for toys they want, it's always Takara(TOMY) who do the job of actually engineering and creating the toys themselves. But this isn't the same as co-designing, at least not in the sense of what you're suggesting. What happens here is that Hasbro sends Takara their designs and specifications and Takara sends feedback in terms of what's feasible and what's not. For example the rear end of the G1 Kup's vehicle mode had to be changed because Hasbro's initial design wasn't practical for Takara to do --- Takara will notify Hasbro and Hasbro will approve or suggest a change. There's often a lot of back and forth between the two companies in terms of Takara trying to work out what Hasbro wants. If you look at the Animated Almanac there are pictures of toy prototypes/mock ups and designs with notes from Hasbro telling Takara what they want changed; like with Animated Arcee. But it's all still ultimately about the two parties working out what Hasbro wants. At no stage will Takara question a suggestion/decision from Hasbro based on what they think is suitable for their market -- but rather questions will be raised based on practicality/viability of design (e.g. budget restrictions, engineering issues etc.).

Armada/Micron Legend is a notable exception where both parties did sit down and negotiate over what was suitable for both markets, e.g. Takara at one stage wanted to have trains, but Hasbro argued against it because they said that trains weren't popular in their markets and that sports cars sold better; hence we didn't get any Trainbots in Armada/ML.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kup

It would make sense that everything for the main market is being jointly developed now as they've had simultaneous parallel lines featuring the same molds for each one of their distinct markets. There hasn't been much of 'carrying over' of lines from one market to the other as it was with Takara (like RID for example) and more of joint development with the intention of simultaneous release into both markets.

---

As far as I can see, Hasbro primarily leads the development and TakaraTOMY just carries them over for their market; with the exception of some "high end" lines like Alternity, Disney Label, Device Label etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kup

Whatever the Takara guy told you could be obsolete by now since much changes after a company is acquired or merged into another.

---

The guy I spoke to was Mr. Takagi (don't know his given name). But I suspect that the clause still exists because if it didn't then retailers are able to order directly from TakaraTOMY and bypass Hasbro. This would be awesome if true, because with the current exchange rate and exemption from import duties (since TakaraTOMY would be distributing to overseas retailers) they'd be able to supply TakaraTOMY TFs at RRP - cheaper than Hasbro's rip off prices! Someone call TRU and tell them to order Japanese DOTM Deluxes and TF Prime First Eds! :D But I suspect this may not be the case -- Jetwing Optimus Prime was sold here via Hasbro Australia and not directly from TakaraTOMY. TakaraTOMY are happy to supply TFs to Australian retailers, but only through Hasbro or with Hasbro's consent (but even then retailers charged a pretty penny for that toy :()

So the fact that Jetwing Optimus Prime was released here via Hasbro last year suggests to me that the clause is still in effect. If not... <wink> ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoktimusPrime

That's different. While Hasbro often do conceptual designs for toys they want, it's always Takara(TOMY) who do the job of actually engineering and creating the toys themselves. But this isn't the same as co-designing, at least not in the sense of what you're suggesting. What happens here is that Hasbro sends Takara their designs and specifications and Takara sends feedback in terms of what's feasible and what's not. For example the rear end of the G1 Kup's vehicle mode had to be changed because Hasbro's initial design wasn't practical for Takara to do --- Takara will notify Hasbro and Hasbro will approve or suggest a change. There's often a lot of back and forth between the two companies in terms of Takara trying to work out what Hasbro wants. If you look at the Animated Almanac there are pictures of toy prototypes/mock ups and designs with notes from Hasbro telling Takara what they want changed; like with Animated Arcee. But it's all still ultimately about the two parties working out what Hasbro wants. At no stage will Takara question a suggestion/decision from Hasbro based on what they think is suitable for their market -- but rather questions will be raised based on practicality/viability of design (e.g. budget restrictions, engineering issues etc.).

Armada/Micron Legend is a notable exception where both parties did sit down and negotiate over what was suitable for both markets, e.g. Takara at one stage wanted to have trains, but Hasbro argued against it because they said that trains weren't popular in their markets and that sports cars sold better; hence we didn't get any Trainbots in Armada/ML.


As far as I can see, Hasbro primarily leads the development and TakaraTOMY just carries them over for their market; with the exception of some "high end" lines like Alternity, Disney Label, Device Label etc.


The guy I spoke to was Mr. Takagi (don't know his given name). But I suspect that the clause still exists because if it didn't then retailers are able to order directly from TakaraTOMY and bypass Hasbro. This would be awesome if true, because with the current exchange rate and exemption from import duties (since TakaraTOMY would be distributing to overseas retailers) they'd be able to supply TakaraTOMY TFs at RRP - cheaper than Hasbro's rip off prices! Someone call TRU and tell them to order Japanese DOTM Deluxes and TF Prime First Eds! :D But I suspect this may not be the case -- Jetwing Optimus Prime was sold here via Hasbro Australia and not directly from TakaraTOMY. TakaraTOMY are happy to supply TFs to Australian retailers, but only through Hasbro or with Hasbro's consent (but even then retailers charged a pretty penny for that toy :()

So the fact that Jetwing Optimus Prime was released here via Hasbro last year suggests to me that the clause is still in effect. If not... <wink> ;)

---

I think you are arguing about something different to what I am. I am talking about recent practices and you are using 1980s examples - Even Hasbro's own local business practices have considerably changed since those days making such examples completely obsolete. Your Jetwing OP example also doesn't really proof much as how do you know that Tomy had intended to release the mold in their market but just cancelled it? They released everything else and this is just one mold after all.

Regardless, what you stated in your post about the Almanac certainly sounds like co-development to me which is exactly the point that I am making. Since Tomy joint with Takara, there has been less 'mainstream' Japanese exclusive lines with the exception of small collector friendly ones. This makes sense since Hasbro has a more 'toys for kids' mentality while in Japan, the collector market is more greatly acknowledged. All the higher profile 'retail' lines like Animated, Movie and Universe/Generations seem to be co-developed with Hasbro who appears to have the more influence on mold development decisions.

Just to make it clear - We are not talking about market cross-contamination, we are discussing co-development of molds which will end up being sold on both markets and which Hasbro clearly has a huge say on it. You know yourself that the toys intended for both markets are manufactured within the same factory further suggest cooperation in development and some manufacturing practices.

The clause is about market cross-contamination not the development of toy molds that will eventually end up in both markets under their own individual banners. I don't think Tomy just forks all the development costs and then sells the mold to Hasbro to produce in their own market, the toys are clearly co-developed for intended release in that of both. After that the factory creates two production runs, one intended for Hasbro and the other for Tomy which is the Clause that you keep bringing up and has no bearing in what is being discussed.