Masters of the Universe Classics

[Motuxmen]

With the exception of me being able to grow the universe, You're right. Even though your being cynical, nothing is as impossible as you make it out to be.

Sorry, but because you are unwilling to find a way to make a growing collection of toys fit your lifestyle, doesn't mean Mattel should make a play set like Snake Mountain any smaller than it needs to be.

IMO.

I didn't say I couldn't fit it.

Space is finite. You said its not. It is. And it's a fact.

Just beucase you claim to be willing to drop tens of thousands of dollars to put additions on your house doesn't mean Mattel should count on other people being willing to do the same. If price and size where already not an issue then the CAstle they already did would not be being used to show why a large item doesn't sell. If people can't afford a 300 dollar item on what planet are they able to buy a bigger house, or add on to the one they have or buy more shelves or what not.

But that wasn't even the point. You said space was infinite. It's not. I don't care how much you "want it". The size the planet ain't changing. And that is what his point was.

And I just had his space discussion yesterday in the 1/6 MF thread. One guy talking about how he's got all the everything so it means others do to. So I took 15 minutes to scimm threads and saw nearly 50 posts about people unable or unwilling to buy another figure beciase of space concerns. And one fool bragging about his ability to do it all. That's a 50/1 ratio. It's not like Mattel couldn't make it. They can. But it's about the entire market not one person. And the market has already demonstrated thru Castle G what it's willing to support. Just beciase you can or do or will it to be bigger doesn't mean others do.

And just beciase you want something doesn't mean it happens. No matter how bad you want it. World doesn't work like that. Otherwise no one would ever die or be unhappy and everyone would be rich. Or at least a lot more.

 

[Kuwahara]

I didn't say I couldn't fit it.

Space is finite. You said its not. It is. And it's a fact.

Just beucase you claim to be willing to drop tens of thousands of dollars to put additions on your house doesn't mean Mattel should count on other people being willing to do the same. If price and size where already not an issue then the CAstle they already did would not be being used to show why a large item doesn't sell. If people can't afford a 300 dollar item on what planet are they able to buy a bigger house, or add on to the one they have or buy more shelves or what not.

But that wasn't even the point. You said space was infinite. It's not. I don't care how much you "want it". The size the planet ain't changing. And that is what his point was.

And I just had his space discussion yesterday in the 1/6 MF thread. One guy talking about how he's got all the everything so it means others do to. So I took 15 minutes to scimm threads and saw nearly 50 posts about people unable or unwilling to buy another figure beciase of space concerns. And one fool bragging about his ability to do it all. That's a 50/1 ratio. It's not like Mattel couldn't make it. They can. But it's about the entire market not one person. And the market has already demonstrated thru Castle G what it's willing to support. Just beciase you can or do or will it to be bigger doesn't mean others do.

And just beciase you want something doesn't mean it happens. No matter how bad you want it. World doesn't work like that. Otherwise no one would ever die or be unhappy and everyone would be rich. Or at least a lot more.

Are you upset because I feel space in infinite? You are pretty determined to try to convince me and other people on other forums, so this topic must hit close to home for you. Space being finite is not a fact. It is your opinion. I simply don't agree with you, but don't get upset about it.

Instead of arguing about physics, let's get back to the issue at hand which is Snake Mountain: some think it's too big, some think it's not. Some think the price is too high, some don't.

I think Snake Mountain is fine the size it is, and I am willing to pay whatever for it. I think Mattel is lying about it needing to be smaller to meet a $300 price point and to make it more display friendly for customers. This is what they want people to believe so they will accept a smaller play set. Mattel says it's too big for most people to display, and naturally most fans seem to believe them. Apparently not everyone has learned yet that Mattel thrives on coercion to sell their product. This illusion of the new team being more transparent is well played, but I'm nobody's fool.

 

[MagpieMad]

I was going to stay out of this (as I stated the other day) but since I've been quoted I'll jump back in then go to bed. I was not referring to the concept of the universe being infinite. According to you I'm a Matty white knight charging in to talk about physics? Here is the quote from you that you seem determined to ignore.

"Shelf space is finite,"

This is just your opinion.

As for the issue at hand, I want it slightly smaller, you want the SDCC size. Do our individual opinions have any impact on the eventual size? Of course not! Lets agree to disagree and move on without the need to name call or belittle each other.

 

[Hellion]

Uggghhhhhh, this thread has become a real drag lately.

 

[Kuwahara]

I was going to stay out of this (as I stated the other day) but since I've been quoted I'll jump back in then go to bed. I was not referring to the concept of the universe being infinite. According to you I'm a Matty white knight charging in to talk about physics? Here is the quote from you that you seem determined to ignore.

As for the issue at hand, I want it slightly smaller, you want the SDCC size. Do our individual opinions have any impact on the eventual size? Of course not! Lets agree to disagree and move on without the need to name call or belittle each other.

LOL! You agreed to disagree when you said this:

"Kuwahara, I just don't care enough to continue this conversation further"

And yet, here you are again. Couldn't resist I guess.

Right, you said shelf space is finite, but you also said this:

"Everything is finite, you cant have infinite space. This is not an opinion, it's a fact!"

And I will say it again. That is not a fact, that is your opinion.

At any rate, I'm pretty sure I pointed out that there are tons of other ways to display toys than on shelves. Some people are trying to say that space in general is finite (refer to motuxmen's hyperbole about growing a bigger house, etc.). If a person is limited where they are unable to find a solution to display the toys they buy, then perhaps they should rethink collecting them, instead of insisting play sets should be scaled down to a size that DOES NOT match the figures they are designed for, simply because it suits their needs. With this selfish logic, everyone else has to have a Snake Mountain out of scale with the figures because a fraction of the customers don't have enough shelf space.

 

[teemu]

stick the playsets on the floor, problem solved

I want SM to be the exact size shown at SDCC...the bigger it can be the better

 

[samueljd]

stick the playsets on the floor, problem solved

I want SM to be the exact size shown at SDCC...the bigger it can be the better

I'd prefer SM to be the exact size too. It would be nice to have the playsets in a more accurate scale.

 

[entrari]

I'd prefer SM to be the exact size too. It would be nice to have the playsets in a more accurate scale.

Ditto.

 

[MagpieMad]

I see. I wrote "shelf space" in my first post and then just "space" in my second. Uh-oh do I spy semantics...

Semantics? Yup, always the last resort when a person doesn't have a strong argument. Bravo!

 

[Kuwahara]

I see. I wrote "shelf space" in my first post and then just "space" in my second. Uh-oh do I spy semantics...

Wow. You got me there.

Anyway, If we take into account that Snake Mountain's peak is a detachable piece, and if the left half of SM is a little too wide and a little too high and altered just a bit, there is no reason why it couldn't fit in a CG sized box. Also, based on the pic (minus the mountain peak) it already looks roughly the same size as CG, maybe just a tiny bit wider and ever so slightly bigger overall. Hardly enough for people to say it's twice as big as CG though. (IMO)

With all of the pictures of SM opened up, and with SLC's coercive statements, it's easy for people to assume SM is just too damn big, even though it really isn't.

 

[Darth Snoopy]

Play nice, Freaks.

If you are not familiar with the boards Code of Conduct then I suggest you do so ASAP.

Community forums are at their best when participants treat their fellow posters with respect and courtesy. Therefore, we ask that you conduct yourself in a civilized manner when participating in these forums. Remember, that your opinion is not a fact and repeating the same criticism over and over again is unlikely to change anyone else’s mind. Think about how your post comes across to readers and be mindful of how you’d like others to respond before you post.

 

[FatHotei]

Wow, seeing SM and CG next to each other really emphasizes that size different. Could someone handy with photoshop mock up an image of snake mountain with the 20% size decrease? SM kinda needs to be big right? I mean, it's a mountain.

 

[MagpieMad]

Wow. You got me there.

Anyway, If we take into account that Snake Mountain's peak is a detachable piece, and if the left half of SM is a little too wide and a little too high and altered just a bit, there is no reason why it couldn't fit in a CG sized box. Also, based on the pic (minus the mountain peak) it already looks roughly the same size as CG, maybe just a tiny bit wider and ever so slightly bigger overall. Hardly enough for people to say it's twice as big as CG though. (IMO)

With all of the pictures of SM opened up, and with SLC's coercive statements, it's easy for people to assume SM is just too damn big, even though it really isn't.

If the cut wasn't too obtrusive and I could display the top of the mountain separately, in a Point Dread style, I'd definitely pick up SM.

Wow, seeing SM and CG next to each other really emphasizes that size different. Could someone handy with photoshop mock up an image of snake mountain with the 20% size decrease? SM kinda needs to be big right? I mean, it's a mountain.

20% reduction seems a bit too much for me, I'd be happy with 10% to 15%

Snake Mountain Size reduction visual mockup for you to see

 

[dedguy]

Do we know if they mean 10-20% reduction in height or reduction in volume?

 

[FatHotei]

If the cut wasn't too obtrusive and I could display the top of the mountain separately, in a Point Dread style, I'd definitely pick up SM.



20% reduction seems a bit too much for me, I'd be happy with 10% to 15%

Snake Mountain Size reduction visual mockup for you to see

I agree, but that's what Mattel was saying, 10-20%. I'd bet it's closer to 20% unfortunately. Just wanted to get a good idea what it would look like.

 

[MagpieMad]

That example on the org is the best I've seen. If it does have to be reduced 20% hopefully they will try to be strategic when they choose what to shrink. As someone on the heman.org thread posted you don't want the gate shrunk more than 10%, but could get away with it in other areas.

EDIT: Dedguy I dont think Matty have stated whether it's just height or volume. Looking at the castle we received I'm going to guess it's a 20% reduction in volume.

 

[dedguy]

If it's volume a 20% reduction in volume is very different than a 20% in height. If the mountain is let's say 100cm cube, a 20% reduction would result in a 92cm cube which is an 8% reduction in height. That's a simplification but you get the idea.

 

[Motuxmen]

Are you upset because I feel space in infinite? You are pretty determined to try to convince me and other people on other forums, so this topic must hit close to home for you. Space being finite is not a fact. It is your opinion. I simply don't agree with you, but don't get upset about it.

Instead of arguing about physics, let's get back to the issue at hand which is Snake Mountain: some think it's too big, some think it's not. Some think the price is too high, some don't.

I think Snake Mountain is fine the size it is, and I am willing to pay whatever for it. I think Mattel is lying about it needing to be smaller to meet a $300 price point and to make it more display friendly for customers. This is what they want people to believe so they will accept a smaller play set. Mattel says it's too big for most people to display, and naturally most fans seem to believe them. Apparently not everyone has learned yet that Mattel thrives on coercion to sell their product. This illusion of the new team being more transparent is well played, but I'm nobody's fool.

On other forums? Since I don't post anywhere else that seems an odd statement. I belong to the org but have not posted there in a year or so.


And you "think" they are lying. Based on what exactly? That the castle being much much smaller was way cheaper? It wasn't. That it sold really well? It didn't. Compare it to a 12 inch hot toy figure that costs 300 dollars. Have you ever worked in a toy or statue company so that you understand how pricing is achieved?

Saying you think they are lying is easy to do. But I've not seen anything from you to back it up. Except that you want it bigger. And you seem to think your wants out weigh everything else. It doesn't matter what you believe about it to be honest. They have come to the conclusion that the prototype shown is not able to be sold for 300 dollars. They didn't say that it's costs 300 dollars. But that when you factor in MARGINS (the percentage of profit) and production cost it makes no business sense at 300. What you or I think about that doesn't matter. Your trying to tell them how to spend their money beucase what you want. Doesn't work that way.

And to be clear-I would prefer it larger. As big or bigger then it is. But I don't place my wants as having more weight then anyone else. Just beucase I want it doesn't mean it's gonna work or should be done.

 

[Kuwahara]

On other forums? Since I don't post anywhere else that seems an odd statement. I belong to the org but have not posted there in a year or so.


And you "think" they are lying. Based on what exactly? That the castle being much much smaller was way cheaper? It wasn't. That it sold really well? It didn't. Compare it to a 12 inch hot toy figure that costs 300 dollars. Have you ever worked in a toy or statue company so that you understand how pricing is achieved?

Saying you think they are lying is easy to do. But I've not seen anything from you to back it up. Except that you want it bigger. And you seem to think your wants out weigh everything else. It doesn't matter what you believe about it to be honest. They have come to the conclusion that the prototype shown is not able to be sold for 300 dollars. They didn't say that it's costs 300 dollars. But that when you factor in MARGINS (the percentage of profit) and production cost it makes no business sense at 300. What you or I think about that doesn't matter. Your trying to tell them how to spend their money beucase what you want. Doesn't work that way.

And to be clear-I would prefer it larger. As big or bigger then it is. But I don't place my wants as having more weight then anyone else. Just beucase I want it doesn't mean it's gonna work or should be done.

That's right, I think they are lying, which would suggest AN OPINION. I really don't need to provide proof or anything to back up my OPINION. Mattel is a business, they are deceptive, and everything they say is generally a lie to coerce people into thinking a certain way, which ultimately leads to giving them money for an inferior product. You really haven't been paying attention for the past 8 years if you think otherwise, and Scott not being there anymore doesn't make it any less true. But again, I'll just call it an opinion for now.

"They have come to the conclusion that the prototype shown is not able to be sold for 300 dollars."

You believe that, I don't, and I disagree with all your mumbo jumbo about it not making any business sense at $300. If Castle Grayskull can be sold for $250, Snake Mountain can sell for right around $300.

I want it the size it was shown, no bigger, no smaller. However, I know Mattel will make it smaller and I've already explained 10,000 times why I think they will, and it has nothing to do with the price or being able to display it. That was Mattel pretending to be transparent.

"But I don't place my wants as having more weight then anyone else. Just beucase I want it doesn't mean it's gonna work or should be done."

Is that what I'm doing? LOL!

It isn't just me who wants what I want. I am one of many who want the same things so, trying to paint me as selfish was not well played at all.

"Your trying to tell them how to spend their money"

I am?

"I belong to the org"

Yeah, pretty much. LOL!

 

[entrari]

Just a thought. If we do get point dread and mount it on top of GRayskull then Snake Mountain shouldn't be smaller than their combined height. So maybe not too much of a reduction. I like the idea of reducing volume instead.