1/1 LowViz Lurker

Yeah but in the good olden days (men being a bit gruff) there was also a time when men wore pink shirts. lol Perfume on men is the new pink shirt of today. I don't think it's all women's fault, just the elite want to differentiate themselves from everyone else to stand out more and people who make the perfumes are looking to expand into new territories to increase profits. Those who buy into it become a type of slave to the 'fashion cycle'. (ie something that is unfashionable, suddenly becoming fashionable all over again when somebody else who matters is started to be seen wearing it - no matter how ridiculous it seems to them) It's really as simple as this: The people who set all the trends don't want you to be confident in yourself no matter what you wear, they want you to have an excuse to spend more money. If say, a cheap alternative to looking classy comes along, the classy people with more money to spend now need a new thing to set themselves apart from the others who are trying to look like them and this results in creating a need (to look different). The need is fullfilled by these companies (who set the new image) constantly altering something so the other guys who try to follow the classy people, can't really catch up because he can't afford to look like the upper class guy by the time the new trend becomes fashionable. Sure there will always be some things that never go out of fashion, but the whole concept of creating the new image so that people will differentiate themselves to look classier than others stays the same from one period to another.

Good review of the upgraded version 2 CMS legios and tread set jenius. I feel even worse now that I was suckered in to buy the first release. But not in the same way that you'd be with a yamato release with a busted or fragile part. More like "now that I have no money left after having bought that original one, my chances of getting the better one is less likely" type of thing. I would really like it if one day yamato attempt the legios and tread combo and these things don't become the last and only ever toy of this mecha. I'm not going to buy the toynami, and not 100% satisfied with CMS (which I find much "safer" in the long term than the toynami version) so there's got to be a market out there for some other company who can get it right and make the definitive toy that has a good link, accurate transformation, and won't break up looking at it wrong.

I know this: I loved those effects in the carpenter movie and thought it was a scary monster/alien/creature/thing and so long as they can make me scared, the other stuff like how deep/original the characters are, is more like the icing on the cake for me and may not be enough to stop me from seeing it. It will probably end up getting pwned by the alien prequel though. Maybe one day we'll get a "the thing vs the predator vs alien" movie so people have something even bigger than this to bitch about. I'm pretty sure the thing would easily beat the other aliens and humans with ease just for being able to mimick them. Maybe a terminator would survive against the thing since robots know their own kind and I doubt the thing could trick their sensors. Really the terminator would easily get beaten by humans because dogs can sniff them, but the terminators could probably beat the thing easily just because mimmicking a machine would be hard, and if the liquid metal version could morph into a thing of its own, then the thing could have problems trying to figure out whose mimmicking IT. It would be like a spy vs spy movie. Every known alien race will be paranoid of its own machines and its own kind and starting killing each other because they accuse each other of being the thing. (except for the terminators on earth after they sucessfully killed off all human life and starting expanding onto other worlds)

I'm sure the exchange would work if you explain to them what happened. (faulty product) Try first. Let them know they are a bad store for selling faulty stuff and that you will scream about how you got ripped off to everyone until they listen. Most people and businesses are reasonable enough to only exchange if something was wrong with the thing they sold. (at least in my experience)

My view on the destroids is this: they are slower with thicker armor. Probably have longer range. Sit in rows to provide a wall of defense. will be useful in small confined spaces (more compact than a tank in terms of surface area of the feet but probably slower and easier to hit because of height) where not much movement is needed. and they are probably easier to maintain and control so that anyone can use them. People can ride in them and keep them like people who ride horses as a hobby or want one as a pet. You don't see them because they lost in favour of the valks which were initially more expensive but were needed more badly than ground robots. If the zentradi only used reguld and required that pancake shaped dropship to retrieve the reguld after each attack things might have been different. You might have seen more destroids to fight off the reguld. I could imagine a spartan blowing off big chunks of the reguld and finishing it off with a bat to the legs using an baton to crush the legs if it ever got too close. But they didn't just use reguld so that why valks took over. modular design of the valk means you can equip it with whatever weapons you think the mission would need without changing the basic robot itself. So making valks could save money in the long run. This is probably why the VB-6 is used because it can still fight off the ground and if needed go into battroid for close-up fighting. (maybe the turning speed is quicker in that mode?) As for tanks: they co-exist in macross in the future. Just because we don't see them often (they were in frontier weren't they?) doesn't mean they are extinct. The destroid as I mentioned is probably easier to control though at closer range so I think that why they were made. (it is something between a tank and a gun turret - tanks might not be good enough against faster targets, while turret might leave you defencless against heavy weapons) Also if giants ever got to you at close range you have guns at their height-level to shoot them with. (instead of shooting at their ankles) But to me they are not the "anti-giant" mecha like the valks, but more the "anti-giant-mecha" mecha. Destroids would shoot their fighter pods from the sky, (not moving much from their position and benefitting more from thick armour(like tank) and maybe kill off the regulds that managed to sneak on the sruface. While battroid mode valks would rush to the areas that the destroid couldn't make it in time to kill off the ones that required more speed. Since there are not large numbers of enemies to deal with (when does space war II start?) I don't think we need tosee destroids as much. But I believe they'd still be useful in a situation where humans were outnumbered again. (which isn't likely to happen) More guns shooting at once = more damage dealt to the enemy in shorter time, in a mass alien invasion scenario. If think if the ghost drone in macross plus were to ever go crazy again, a group of destroid pilots could easily shoot at it from the ground to take one down and isamu and guld would not have to deal with the problem but that since kawamori wants to highlght the heroic valks, we will never see something like that. I think if there was a non-canon macross videogame where the only missions you do are base defense against air and ground targets who are trying to take control, you would see the destroid as a more-heroic grunt machine. Yes the valks can fly and are probably lighter and faster, but it probably takes more skill to use those too. (learning to fly, being good in three modes instead of one etc) My guess is that people who fight in space are more skilled in the open and dodging missiles, (all the qrau pilots) while the ground fighters are more focused on shooting because they don't move around as much and can go to areas where there might be cover from the usual micromissile swarms. The ground fighters probably don't have time to dodge so that's why in the tv series you see destroid pilots getting pwned. But think of how many things they shot down before blowing up? You can't say they are "useless" just because you didn't see how much stuff they killed offscreen before the eventual death.

As long as they make them good I'm happy. I want the next thing to be a surprise release like the vb-6 monster was. (possibly variable glaug?) There is no love for transforming alien chicken legged mecha on these boards.

I love the vf-11. I wonder why yamato hasn't done a pink pecker repaint yet? hehe Buy one for your girlfriend. then get the milia later Is it just a licensing issue?

totally agree. Actually make an FAQ, then have that faq get updated each time new info is created. I would normally encourage others to buy yamato toys (casual fans of macross that don't come here) but I always worry that if I didn't read up on it on the MWboards I could be recommending something to them that is going to crack easily. A nice easy to read faq with all that info would save so much time.

If there had been a mospeada series sequel maybe it would have increased the chances of seeing beagle fuke from the first series. I'm happy with my Beagle Rey and think if another company tries to do mospeada in the future they should use this as the measuring stick of what customers will be expecting. Yamato should have tried to do mospeada toys instead of bubblegum crisis imo. Was there any reason why they aren't? Bandai has the macross f stuff covered. So that should leave them with time to concentrate some more on 80s mecha shows. I bought the CMs legious + tread. Bought the Beagle ride armor. Those that didn't buy the ultimate expensive toys: shame shame shame. You could have sold your body on the street or something. Now we can't get Beagle Fuke. Thanks a lot. It will probably be another 20 years before any company attempts to do it again. And it will probably be crappier than the beagle one. That is assuming if the fans are still around for that long. I predict the only thing that might save this is if "Robotech comes to the rescue". Release a new RT series about ride armor soldiers sent out to hunt the inbit and learn the secret behind their shapeshifting powers so they can control this process for the future. (kinda like the evil humans in avatar exploiting the magic floating rocks of the navi - yes cameron might have stole floating rocks from kawamori's macross zero lol) Come on HG where is the new robotech tv series?

Maybe thinking of getting this but was wondering, should I get that or wait for max and milia vf22? Gamlin's scheme looks better to me but there is something about the aces I can't resist. Help me to decide!

I hope nothing gets rare. I just spent money on beagle mospeada ride armour stuff, causing me to fall behind a bit on the expensive macross toy stuff. If they get rare and ebayers abuse that by boosting the percieved value of the toys to insane price, that's only going to make things worse. But if they have to make the toys expensive, then at least make sure that the QC isn't lousy so that buyer confidence is there. I hate that there is going to be bad versions of the same thing floating around out there more than I hate price being high. (since I'm not a multiples guy or a guy that must have everything) Yamato need to offer a "take it home now and pay us later" scheme to use us to help them free up space for when the next swarm of macross products is released to shelves. If only they sold this stuff at bunnings warehouse and we could get macross goodies at the warehouse prices.."I think I'll buy a new hammer and a shovel, oh and 3 of those transforming planes while I'm here".

Well yamato could do a bunch of non-canon ones. Maybe a green qrau but left as DYRL version of the mecha? (doesn't look like they want to do the tv version) It would be like the 1/48 vf-1 brownie release which was tv series paint but dyrl head - ie a mix of the two. They could include a generic female pilot in it instead of milia. As for the purple one that would be a no brainer. Again they could do a new figure for it and have a generic female grunt in place of milia. (the girl who commits suicide in the movie after getting shot down when trying to run away?)

You might just like the design of the original more. I have the same thing going when I think about the bubblegum crisis shows, where I think the older stuff was better. Also with TF G1 its probably because you hate the busy live action movie designs so now you wish the style of the originals was used. So many people wanted to see the live action version be based on the animated movie and tv series characters of the 80s because that's what they remember. Prime with flames and exposed internal skeleton is not as appealing as the older robot design with coverings all over to make him look clean from a distance. You are not alone.

Tiny transforming revoltechs sounds interesting. Even if they are not perfect in a certain mode, I would like to see how these turn out. (I still have my old banpresto valks which I swear by so long as you don't touch them lol. I would settle for 1 mode looking crap if 2 of them still look ok) I think they could get away with a vf-17 ok. The bandai chunky munky of that looks all phat too. This is the problem with fans here though: I think most people here want good fighter modes over good robot modes. Seeing as revoltechs are all about highly posable action figures, you are not going to see as much love for them here, but maybe at general robot fan boards. I still think Qrau would be perfect to do, and it is strange why they won't do it? Not that I have anything against the yamato one, but this mech could easily be done as a highly posable figure. (maybe a bit backheavy but that's why its suitable as a smaller toy) We all want mini QRAUS! It's the first real highly manueverable enemy ace mech we see in the macross universe so it's at least got character significance to the series. (I'm sure there are many who want to put a valk vs Qrau battle scene in there to recreate roys death from female grunts and Max's 1-to-1 mech duel)

put my response in the wrong thread doh

This pretty much sums up good business vs bad business attitude: It is a response to the gamasutra article which talks about the issue of used games hurting the original developers sales due to people looking for bargains buying secondhand copies, and how retailers make profit on this because it save them money too. The same idea can be applied to toys imo, I've bolded the bits that I think are relevant to this thread: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3872...mes_.php?page=3 What I want to highlight is how there are businesses that do want to make a profit and that is the end goal (these are the guys like electronic arts that buy up all the developers to put them out of competition so they can gain control) and then there are the good businesses that actually do care about the 'value' that fans of their game and consumers can see in the products that they create which makes them loyal to that company. The 'good' ones are the ones that often listen to the fan feedback and at the same time manage to stay in business, while the bad guys are the businesses where they don't really care about the thing they make and are not passionate about it so it reflects in the work they do. The fanbase and long time consumer who plays them, may see a difference in the level of quality of the products and slowly stops buying once they see quality or value dropping in some way. It could be something as simple as the game not running as smoothly because the original programmers have no reason to work as hard because they are a big company now, ...or something like: the product no longer has the same team on board who possessed the unique vision which made the games so appealing - a bit like when a new director takes control of a movie franchise and the sequels don't capture the same thing that people valued from the originals and fans are disappointed. The good businesses are not solely driven by the profit but by their own standard of trying to better themselves so they can get good critical response from those who will be using it. This is what makes them valuable to the consumers who do their homework and can see value in the product. The end result is that the consumers don't just buy the product based on 'love' but because they are actually getting the thing they wanted and kept 'happy'. For each person who spends money (whether money comes easily to you or not) the thing they value may not have anyhting to do with costs or anything like that. It may not necessarily be the thing that costs the company a lot of money to develop, but just be something simple that competitors overlook like how the art in the game looks, or in yamato's case the overall look of the toy and stuff like that. Some people might not buy yamatos on the QC or anything like that, but something like the look of robot mode to them. Another guy might value yamato's for the sculpt, but be disgusted at the price because they want a tough toy because they are used to strong materials in expensive toys. The end result is this: what the consumer values in a product will differ from person to person. Just as you have your fans of transformer alternators who might be drawn to the low price of them (it means they can handle them and transform them a lot) vs the fans of the more-costly transformers binaltechs who might value the heavier weight of the toy and feel because they are collectors who don't handle the toys. The more-expensive BT isn't necessarily more valuable to the consumer in the former group who was drawn to buying the plastic alternators even though the BT would be more expensive to make. You could say that the greed of a company can be in how it overestimates their products' own value to the consumer who isn't willing to pay for the costly feature that was put in the product that (to them) didn't really improve the product. (because they value something that was missing from the product that could have been the focus of the company making it. Often in the game industry you hear people whine and complain about all the attention of the game being focused on shiny graphics but the game just isn't as 'fun'. How do you quantify 'fun'?)

I totally agree with that. I'm just pointing out that ALL businesses are in business to profit. But that the minute a rival company can actually produce a comparable quality product at a slightly lower price, that is when the nerdy guys start to look for the best bargain. At the end of the day just think of the consumer as a business that doesn't sell but only buys things. The things they buy have value to them and depending on the person that value may vary. Some people like toynami alpha more than CM. Some people hate yamato's because they have breaking arms in first release even though they paid a high price for it and collectors grade toys should be better than mass produced toys from hasbro (I admit the TF do have tree stump limbs but still they are tough toys - wouldn't you love yamato to put clicky joints in hips for example?) I know industries have there differences but my point is that consumers that do buy different brands notice the differences in brands over years of buying history and rigorous usage. (I've noticed for example nintendo have dropped the ball on the Quality of the nintendo DS - the shoulder buttons on mine keep breaking. This was a company that had near indestructible hardware) Yes people whine but some of it is warranted and some of it isn't. I think something like clicky joints so the toy doesn't get floppy limbs is a reasonable expectation. If hasbro/takara have them, why not try to improve on what you provide instead of give reason for people to complain that they feel the toy is not 'worth' what they paid for? (due to comparing yamato to other manufacturers) I know the VF-1 has got great reviews so far, but what about vb-6 koenig monster? Could they have found a way to add better joints on the hips or have the cannon lock into place? If other companies were thinking of making a monster in future, they would take what did work, improve on it, and throw out what didn't work. So even if yamato had no one else to compete with they can look at themselves and judge themselves to see how they can outdo themselves to make people not whine about them.

But I argue the customer doesn't have to know those things and the customer in general doesn't care how it is made. If a competitor can do those things cheaper and better and the customer can find a better deal somewhere else they will go for the best deal they can find (customer greed? consumers generally buy cheap goods) just like how businesses will find the best worker at the cheapest price to save money, not hire the most expensive one. (corporate greed - find the cheap workers) Take an example with software: Microsoft might spend a lot of money developing a program for commercial reasons (make profit that's what businesses do things for, right?), but some hobbyist programmer makes a similar thing and offers it virtually free because they decided that after looking at all the commercially-available software out there, they weren't getting what they wanted from the paid-for stuff that they currently see out there and so that prompted them to just make the program for themselves anyway (for their own personal use) so it would cost them nothing to just share it with others. But this competes with the commercial microsoft program which people were used to buying and paying money for. Even though the commercial product being sold was expensive for the business to develop because the business had to hire workers to make it, that doesn't mean the customer/consumer should give a poo if that program isn't better than what else is out there. (ie in this case the program which is offerred for free and isn't full of bugs and doesn't hog so much of your computer's resources to run it) So what I am trying to say to you all is that results are what matter - they are what consumers care about, not detailed excuses. If I can see a bargain selling cheap (not because it isn't good quality and no one wants it, but just that the company makes less profit than the competition - a good example is the commodore 64 home computer back in the 80s - no other company could compete with that deal which is HOW it got so popular) then I will go with the deal that offers the best quality at the same time as gives the best value, not worry about the company that makes it prospering or the profit they make. I'm a selfish, tight-ass consumer! As a customer/consumer all I should care about is me, me, me. And for all those people saying: "businesses are out to make money they are not a charity", I say to that "the consumer is a consumer whore out to find the best deal available. They are not all rich and will look to save". So it all boils down to greed of the consumer who holds onto their money tightly (uncle scrooge) vs the greed of the corporation who want to maximise profit (and who may not care about value - case in point: Nintendo Wii vs the Xbox360 and PS3 which are much higher quality and aimed at the higher end consumer but which are getting their asses kicked in sales due even though they are offerred at a competitive price to the lower-quality, lower-end Wii.) As a person who buys a lot of games console hardware I know that nintendo are offerring worse bang for your buck. Why should I care that how they do things is more expensive than how microsoft or sony do things if the end result is that their product just isn't as good or meet the standards of the discerning buyer? The answer is: you shouldn't. No excuses. One is making less profit (or no profit at all on the hardware in sony's case) and the other is laughing their ass off at the huge sales plus profit on the machine they sell because the masses are dumb or not as tech savvy as the discerning buyer looking for good value and quality. You could say that yamato isn't greedy, but the reality is, greed is what drives people to start business. All companies are greedy. But all you should care about is what the end result is: does the product meet your standards for what the final price is, compared to what ever else is on the market at the time? That's all that should be taken into consideration. If for example the money is wasted on stupid stuff like making the box look ultra fancy or putting diecast on parts that don't need diecast and that boosts the cost of the product but doesn't improve it, then why should people be happy about that? All they care about is what the end result is: is it a good product that satisfies the demand of the buyers? I don't care that toynami put diecast on the alphas and therefore the price is higher to make them due to that, (excuses for why things should cost more to the consumer) just that the thing they sell is something that I'd want to buy. My point is why should the unhappy buyer care about stuff that costs lots of money to make if the thing that costs lots of money to make might seem a little unnecessary? If bandai for example offerred tampo printing on all their toys in the past while yamato had stickers, should not the consumer complain that they can still get better value from the other companys' toys than yamato's? Is it not fair to point out that the competition may offer something the other can't? What difference does it make to the "whiny nerd" why something cost a little more to develop when all the whiny nerd wants is the best thing that money can buy? If the competition can actually do it cheaper than your business can, it's time to rethink how you are running things not get angry at your buyers for finding the better deal and being smart shoppers. Calling them names is only going to piss them off.

Yeah but think of how vulnerable you are in space in battroid mode out in the open being still? Unlike in MS gundam, (original gundam) there are lots of missiles in the macross universe. I get the feeling that if you are in battroid mode when there are lots of missiles, just floating there on the spot, you are doomed. But in fighter mode you have increased chances of getting out of there and outflying the missiles or just tricking the missiles to not follow your tail. Everytime a swarm of missiles is launched you'll note good pilots 'chicken out' and go into fighter mode to avoid death. There is really only one time where someone just relied on robot mode to shoot down the missiles and that was roy showing off in macross zero. But that's only because I think he likes to take stupid risks. "why avoid missiles when I can blow them up with my eyeball-tracking system?" But when in fighter mode you are constantly moving. Those missiles are going to take longer to get to you. In an open space I would rather try to fly away. Saves ammo, safer, you are harder to hit from the new sniper valks in macross Frontier. I suppose it is more cool and dramatic to see a battroid fight at close range when fighting a single enemy though, than to have them fight only in fighter mode from a distance. It's easier for the zentradi because they have unlimited shots from their energy weapons.

Finally so has anyone bought one and had a chance to compare them with other previous releases to see the differences?

Fighter mode is the most useful. As long as you can fly away from a fight you can't win you will live to fight another day. Battroid mode would be the next useful. If you are on the ground using cover and the enemy is also using cover, that means you are going to need more accuracy with your shots and need to save ammo too. Being able to shoot from a position where you are protected or hidden or both, is going to by very handy. Gerwalk mode: least useful. It's just a battroid mode with the head up its ass. used by noobs who can't handle the harder controls of the robot mode as Roy mentioned when hikaru was too uncoordinated to pilot the robot yet. I can see this mode only being useful for when fighter mode needs to lift vertically. But since a lot of the fighting is going to be in space, (no up or down) it's not really all that needed.

Ah never thought about that. I wonder if the quality is going to differ? I don't mind toynami having control over the box, just hope the toy is the same thing. The different head doesn't look too bad imo.

Pyramids on mars: The whole point of the conspiracy theorists saying there even is a conspiracy to begin with is that someone is covering things up for whatever odd reason. NASA for example is often cited as being part of the conspiracy. Because if people are seeing UFOs outside their windows in cities, (some of it might be fake of course, this is the age of photoshop) and the guys looking out into space haven't seen any ufos, isn't it reasonable to assume they just don't want you to know? So the message they are giving to others is the idea of aliens being with us riding around in UFOs, but that they haven't been 'allowed' (evidence is carted away by the military - so that means scientists from the outside can't get a chance to see it) to get the evidence out to the public because "men in black" or someone has threatened them to not have that evidence out. Now if this is at a government level of coverup, do you think the media is going to be allowed to do it without their permission? (assuming for a second there is a real coverup of knowledge of intelligent lifeforms out there or some evidence of intelligent lifeform like a crashed ship or a abandoned base, and they are not lying) Of course not. So we shouldn't assume we know absolutely everything. The hobbit cave = new information. People had not believed in that species before. So new knowledge is being added and scientists have the chance to get something new. My point: don't assume you know absolutely everything there is to know. And yeah I understand your point: aliens didn't create humans because there is evidence on earth of monkeys being ancestors. There is debate amongst creationionist and evolutionist scientists which I don't want to get into here. My post wasn't to get into one of those which is what you post was doing. About the insulting part: Actually what difference does it makes who gets offended? Isn't trying to get the truth of how things came about much more important than being nice? I'm not a big fan of political correctness. People should just speak their mind so others know where they stand right from the start. My point isn't to try to challenge your own belief, just to say people must think out of the box: Why is it ok to just assume scientists have access to all information from the beginning (don't people want to keep technology secret so others can't steal it?) instead of some of that information being kept secret or that information being hidden away somewhere? It's a lazy mans way of doing things. It's not as simple as: If one guy knows something, that means everyone should know it at the same time; with our brains networked together and everyone has their share permission on their files and folders set on for others to look at. I'm saying the attitude would be more like: "this information is valuable to someone, let's not share it, lets use it, keep it for ourselves, and hide it." In an imperfect world not everyone is 'nice' and wants to do the right thing. The tinfoil crowd is saying "we don't have evidence gathered up right now. We still want you to believe us but we don't have evidence. Us not having evidence doesn't automatically mean those who think we are liars know absolutely everything or that those that do know something which the pulic doesn't, will just come out in the open and hand that info out freely. There might be some reason they can't speak (signed something saying they were not allowed to talk) or they just have their own reasons. (it might destroy their career or reputation and they've decided only on their deathbed will they reveal something like that. sorta like how some gays are "scared to come out in the open" because they don't want to live a life harassed or a target of anyone.

I agree with what this man said. Just like with my nintendo example. Some companies do charge more than other companies competiing. The only difference is nintendo has competition whereas yamato is the only game in town for the thing they make which could be the contributing factor. When another company can compete with yamato and make valks on their level of sculpt accuracy, complexity, quality etc, then there would be a price war. Guys just look at the console games industry to see what I mean. Nintendo has no incentive to put the price down on the wii unlike the other manufacturers despite their machine not being as powerful a system. Why? Because it's selling well. That's just good business. But it doesn't mean you the consumer should be all happy if you wanted to play that one or two games on the system but didn't want to justify buying the overpriced game console just to play that one or two games on it that you like. You as a consumer should be pretty angry at paying premium for a less powerful system because you are used to having more for less. The moral of the story: all companies are greedy because businesses are out to make money. But the question is how greedy is yamato compared to other companies that offer toys of a similar level as theirs? Sure they are small, people keep saying but can you say you are getting as good value for money buying the 1/60 Qrau vs 1/48 vf-1 when they first came out? One is much less complex, one can't transform. One looks less detailed. So if you go back to my game console example of the nintendo wii being overpriced compared to the others, the Qrau could be said to be overpriced thing in this instance. Greed is good for businesses. Value for money is good for consumers. Businesses want to be able to get away with as little value for money as possible if they can (nintendo wii example) if that means more profit. But consumers want to be able to get as good value for money as they can especially if it translates into better quality in the item. (remember how many people whined about lack of tampo printing on yamato valkyries in the past compared to bandai toys? This is an example of something that you as a consumer expect because you have competition like bandai toys to compare against yamato. If other companies never existed, you wouldn't have anything to compare with.) Just because yamato is small doesn't get them off the hook. That doesn't mean they could still overcharge for something like any other company might still do. It really depends on the toy they are doing. I think vf-1 is easy for them to milk because there is more than one type of the same thing in the show. Whereas with other mecha there isn't as many variations. So perhaps that has something to do with it. The more profit they make on a given toy, the more incentive to keep improving and releasing better ones in future with the profits they make. (v2 1/60 for example?) they can take what they learned and reuse that knowledge for future.

You're missing the point. I'm not here to argue whether creationists or evolutionists are right. I'm saying for the sake of argument: if you went into space yourself, saw with your very own eyes an intelligent lifeform on the surface of an alien planet. Went back to earth to tell people what you saw. And all the scientists laughed at you because you had no proof of the existence of aliens, it wouldn't matter what the scientists told you. They are basing their info on things they know. Not on what they don't know. You know something they don't because of what you saw. Just because there is no way to prove it to them doesn't mean it isn't a fact. It becomes a fact to you when you see it for yourself, experiment and find out what's real/fake and can confirm what you saw was in fact not mere delusion. It's just not going to be a fact to those who didn't get an opportunity like you, to see it. Do you understand the logic? That is if you are a scientist, did a bunch of experiments to prove all the theories to see if they are factual, were happy with those ones on earth but then ignored what else was out there, you would be in expert only in the sciences you know not the the ones you don't know about, so there is no point speculating on things you can't know due to your lack of experience in a field you never knew existed due to not being given a chance to study what isn't from earth. If they aliens really were around (and for the sake of argument the flying saucers that the conspiracy people capture on film are not convincing hoaxes or man-made ones but the type they say comes from another world) what scientists say that haven't even had a chance to see it in person and study doesn't hold much weight until say the government officially comes clean and allows something like that to be studied by all scientists out there not just ones they want to see it. (not saying that the government is lying but that IF.....there were real alien ufos, then there would be good reason to not let the public know everything about something like that any more than you would let anyone build nukes easily because the tech could be misused in some way - there are plausible reasons to hide a dangerous thing) Please do not turn this into a debate about whether its real or not real. I'm saying if in future, people see stuff on a different planet, say what they saw, and they have no evidence to back up what they saw, doesn't mean they are kooky or making it up, just that we shouldn't assume we already know everything there is to know and that there is no purpose going out to explore to find new discoveries. If people didn't explore and find the hobbit cave or whatever it was, wouldn't that be bad for science because there is less for them to analyse now? Is it safer to assume we already found everything and nothing else new should be brought in? Of course not. This is not a debate about evolution. I wouldn't bother coming to a science fiction board for a discussion about that.