We hear a lot about The Great Cheapening these days: ostensibly, a period in the history of TF creation where materials became shoddier, corners were cut, and the general feeling of quality associated with mass-market TF toys changed for the worse. (I am intentionally only speaking about mass-market releases here: my feeling is that 3rd party toys are often an unfair metric to compare to, for many reasons).

My understanding is that many feel this began around 2013/14 or so, but I'm not entirely sure.

Which raises an interesting question: do we think (or, is) the Great Cheapening something that can ever be viewed subjectively in the context of what came before or since? Can such a perception be reversed?

(Meaning: if we could revisit old G1 or G2 toys through modern eyes, would they be found to be Cheapening victims? Is it only ever a slope downward, or does objective quality ebb and flow over time in respond to changing tastes, consumer demands, the pricing of raw materials and resources, etc?)

From what vantage point in terms of TF release history can it be said that things "cheapened"?

Just something on my mind,

Joseph

On Saturday, June 12, 2021 at 12:09:06 AM UTC-6, Joseph Bardsley wrote:

> We hear a lot about The Great Cheapening these days: ostensibly, a period in the history of TF creation where materials became shoddier, corners were cut, and the general feeling of quality associated with mass-market TF toys changed for the worse. (I am intentionally only speaking about mass-market releases here: my feeling is that 3rd party toys are often an unfair metric to compare to, for many reasons).

I'm almost certain Gustavo Wombat coined the term, and it describes, specifically, the period from about 2013 -2017 during which Hasbro was visibly doing some massive cost-cutting to the toy line. Plastics were observably of poor quality, distressingly lightweight, and working joints were flimsy (Fall of Cybertron Jazz). Paint applications were minimal or non-existent (Combiner Wars Wheeljack). Less expensive ways of assembling the toys were innovated (the dreaded Lee Press-On Wheels). Empty gaps in the toys became the norm (especially the insides of the arms and legs). The size of toys compared to previous releases in the same size classes were reduced. An excessive number of redeco toys were cranked out (Combiner Wars again). The stickers on the Power of the Primes toys, cheaper than tampographed paint applications, would probably qualify as well.

It crept on us so slowly and methodically that it was actually hard, sometimes, to recognize it while we were in the middle of it. Until they finally decided to start selling us high-quality toys again, beginning with Siege, and we all just sort of marveled at Flywheels with his metal pin-and-bolt assembly and collectively went, "Wow, most of the Transformers toys have been garbage up until this point."

I exaggerate slightly, because there were some toys I really enjoyed from that era. But the cost-cutting was excessive and it hurt the toys from that era.

> (Meaning: if we could revisit old G1 or G2 toys through modern eyes, would they be found to be Cheapening victims? Is it only ever a slope downward, or does objective quality ebb and flow over time in respond to changing tastes, consumer demands, the pricing of raw materials and resources, etc?)

You could argue that the very first cost-cutting was way back in 1986—The Great Cost-Cutting, perhaps—when Hasbro started switching die-cast metal parts to plastic, and started doing away with rubber tires. It probably wouldn't have been as obvious (I don't think anybody's ever complained that the Pretenders didn't have metal parts) except for the fact that they were offering objectively "better" and "worse" versions of the exact same toys (the editions of Rodimus Prime, Ultra Magnus, Metroplex, Sandstorm, etc. with rubber tires and/or metal parts are clearly superior). There was another one when they eliminated the rub symbols in 1988. Even though rub symbols were actually only part of the G1 toy line's life cycle for three years out of seven, it was a defining characteristic of the toys.

It can't be a perpetual slope downward, though, because we eventually got G2 toys, and reissue G1 toys, whose die-cast parts and rubber tires were restored, and whose rub symbols returned in all their glory. We saw a return to vacuum-metalized parts with Robots in Disguise. And, as previously mentioned, the advent of Siege represented a dramatic uptick in quality and assembly and engineering, which has continued with Earthrise and Kingdom.

I'm sure some of it is a response to the cost of materials, but I suspect an even more direct cause is Hasbro's profit margins on any given year. They have a banner year in sales, and they can afford to pour more money into the development and production process. They have a bad year in which sales aren't as good, and they have to tighten their belts a little and cut corners to appease the stockholders. I imagine every single industry is like this, but as toy collectors, predominantly, we may not notice it in other fields as much.

Interestingly, I'd say the Cyberverse toys are still suffering badly from the effects of it to this day, but more money is being spent on the mainline toys to make collectors happy. Which is probably a good move, since Hasbro knows full well that we have a choice of emptying our pockets elsewhere (third party, Takara Masterpiece, etc.) if they can't provide a high-quality product.

Zob (planning to go back to spending money as soon as the condo refinance goes through)

Zobovor <zmfts@aol.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, June 12, 2021 at 12:09:06 AM UTC-6, Joseph Bardsley wrote:
>
>> We hear a lot about The Great Cheapening these days: ostensibly, a
>> period in the history of TF creation where materials became shoddier,
>> corners were cut, and the general feeling of quality associated with
>> mass-market TF toys changed for the worse. (I am intentionally only
>> speaking about mass-market releases here: my feeling is that 3rd party
>> toys are often an unfair metric to compare to, for many reasons).
>
> I'm almost certain Gustavo Wombat coined the term, and it describes,
> specifically, the period from about 2013 -2017 during which Hasbro was
> visibly doing some massive cost-cutting to the toy line. Plastics were
> observably of poor quality, distressingly lightweight, and working joints
> were flimsy (Fall of Cybertron Jazz). Paint applications were minimal or
> non-existent (Combiner Wars Wheeljack). Less expensive ways of
> assembling the toys were innovated (the dreaded Lee Press-On Wheels).
> Empty gaps in the toys became the norm (especially the insides of the
> arms and legs). The size of toys compared to previous releases in the
> same size classes were reduced. An excessive number of redeco toys were
> cranked out (Combiner Wars again). The stickers on the Power of the
> Primes toys, cheaper than tampographed paint applications, would probably
> qualify as well.

> It crept on us so slowly and methodically that it was actually hard,
> sometimes, to recognize it while we were in the middle of it. Until they
> finally decided to start selling us high-quality toys again, beginning
> with Siege, and we all just sort of marveled at Flywheels with his metal
> pin-and-bolt assembly and collectively went, "Wow, most of the
> Transformers toys have been garbage up until this point."

I would put a hard start boundary on it as the FOC toys, Jazz and Optimus
being the worst offenders. Worse than just being cheap though, the fine
folks at Hasbro and Takara hadn’t figured out how to make a good toy with
those limitations — a lot of them were hollow, soft garbage.

We went from Generations Warpath, Scourge, Black Shadow, Wheeljack and
Wreck-Gar to… FOC Jazz.

Rather than being a toy line of mostly good toys with a few stinkers, it
was mostly stinkers with a few good toys. Looking at the deluxe class, FOC
Starscream is great… Shockwave is fun and then the deluxe class… skip
forward through the beginning of the Thrilling Thirty to Waspinator, and
Armada Starscream, who were clearly cheaper, but actually good toys.

By the time they got the Combiner Wars, the toys were overall pretty good
again. A few toys needed more paint, and the stickers were an abomination,
but generally good. Did budgets increase? Did they just get better at
working within that budget? I don’t know.

CW Jetfire shows that they were still struggling. A smaller, more solid toy
would have been better.

But, overall, I would say CW was the point where the cheapening wasn’t
hurting the toys.

Oddly, TF:Prime never really suffered as much. Most of the Beast Hunters
line was remolds though, so that might have been their cost savings. They
did try some scaled up legends as deluxes, and I thought the Deluxe
Terrorcons were great — two of my favorite toys to this day.

> I exaggerate slightly, because there were some toys I really enjoyed from
> that era. But the cost-cutting was excessive and it hurt the toys from that era.

One word: Trailbreaker.

>
> Interestingly, I'd say the Cyberverse toys are still suffering badly from
> the effects of it to this day, but more money is being spent on the
> mainline toys to make collectors happy. Which is probably a good move,
> since Hasbro knows full well that we have a choice of emptying our
> pockets elsewhere (third party, Takara Masterpiece, etc.) if they can't
> provide a high-quality product.

I think Cyberverse strikes a different balance for a different audience.

>
> Zob (planning to go back to spending money as soon as the condo refinance goes through)
>

On Saturday, June 12, 2021 at 7:32:43 PM UTC-6, Gustavo Wombat, of the Seattle Wombats wrote:

> We went from Generations Warpath, Scourge, Black Shadow, Wheeljack and
> Wreck-Gar to… FOC Jazz.

You're right. I hadn't quite remembered the chronology of it, but it really was that abrupt, wasn't it?
> By the time they got the Combiner Wars, the toys were overall pretty good
> again. A few toys needed more paint, and the stickers were an abomination,
> but generally good. Did budgets increase? Did they just get better at
> working within that budget? I don’t know.

I remember thinking during Combiner Wars that we were still seeing cost-cutting, but with different aspects of the toys. But, I think we also saw a price increase with Combiner Wars, didn't we? Wasn't that when Deluxes went from $12.99 to like $15.99?

> CW Jetfire shows that they were still struggling. A smaller, more solid toy
> would have been better.

Yeah, he was a big offender. He was so hollow. He shouldn't have been so lightweight considering how big he was.
> But, overall, I would say CW was the point where the cheapening wasn’t
> hurting the toys.

By that point I think they'd moved away from using terrible plastic and were looking at other ways of saving money, like using as few paint applications as possible, and the multitude of redeco toys. (Back then, it was still true that Hasbro didn't sell individual toys; they sold cases of toys to retailers. So, the more redeco toys they snuck into a case assortment, the less they were spending on development overall.)

Oh, one thing I forgot about Power of the Primes. The distressing lack of signature accessories. That was a big problem for me.

> I think Cyberverse strikes a different balance for a different audience.

It's the "kiddie" toy line so they can get away with cutting corners. There's an Optimus Prime toy we sell at Walmart at the $50 price point that comes in open-face toy packaging, and the heads keep popping off because they're just held on with little clips. It's very distressing.

Zob (had this idea to put flavored water in the freezer and let it get slightly icy, and it makes the most amazing semi-frozen zero-calorie treat)