356 replies to this topic

[steelfrogSteve]

Sorry if I offended wit the "few" collectors remark, but it's true. From the perspective of a business, they can't go by what we want unless there is proof that the general public would also be interested. There aren't enough of us. This isn't He-Man or GI Joe. I'd love a fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh series of small, rubber figures. But I'm not gong to get my hopes up about it and crap on any idea that DST goes with otherwise.

It's funny though, because these figures look little like Battle Beasts- no elements (even without rubs or orbs or whatever, they could have incorporated that somehow), they look less humanoid, the size and proportions are off, etc. If I saw these at a store the only connection I'd make with the classic 80s toy line would be through the brand name they've acquired, otherwise I'd just see an octopus crammed into an armoured bucket. It'll be sentimental 20-30 year olds and the collectors who are going to get excited about this brand name, so they might as well throw us a bone here.

Edited by steelfrogSteve, 15 December 2011 - 01:51 PM.

[lord]

What will happen 12th of april ?? do the date match with a convention (CC, Toyfair) or something ??

No big convention at this date. But the Diamond Comic Distributors' PREVIEWS catalog for April sollicitation will be available in february which is the month of the big Toy Fair convention. So I think DST will show the BB products at Toy Fair '12 and items will be immediatly available for pre-order. The official release date would be April 2012 at the end of the countdown.

[lord]

My mistake. The C2E2 2012 is scheduled for 13 april 2012 so we will certainly have something about BB at this date.

[McCTXToys]

I really hope they wind up being little rubber guys like the old ones and not action figures.

[adam16bit]

It's funny though, because these figures look little like Battle Beasts- no elements (even without rubs or orbs or whatever, they could have incorporated that somehow), they look less humanoid, the size and proportions are off, etc. If I saw these at a store the only connection I'd make with the classic 80s toy line would be through the brand name they've acquired, otherwise I'd just see an octopus crammed into an armoured bucket. It'll be sentimental 20-30 year olds and the collectors who are going to get excited about this brand name, so they might as well throw us a bone here.

I'm sure just the name "Battle Beasts" is enough to encourage Dad to buy them for his kids. Collectors are a nice bonus.

[GammaJetpunch]

Sorry if I offended wit the "few" collectors remark, but it's true. From the perspective of a business, they can't go by what we want unless there is proof that the general public would also be interested. There aren't enough of us. This isn't He-Man or GI Joe. I'd love a fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh series of small, rubber figures. But I'm not gong to get my hopes up about it and crap on any idea that DST goes with otherwise.

You should crap on it. It's called "giving an eff".


EDIT: Clever change in my last word... I approve.

Edited by GammaJetpunch, 18 December 2011 - 12:40 AM.

[GammaJetpunch]

It's funny though, because these figures look little like Battle Beasts- no elements (even without rubs or orbs or whatever, they could have incorporated that somehow), they look less humanoid, the size and proportions are off, etc. If I saw these at a store the only connection I'd make with the classic 80s toy line would be through the brand name they've acquired, otherwise I'd just see an octopus crammed into an armoured bucket. It'll be sentimental 20-30 year olds and the collectors who are going to get excited about this brand name, so they might as well throw us a bone here.

Agreed. I mean, I don't mind a few less-humanoid BBs (the Octopus... cause.. ya know... tentacles, and all that), but... for those of us who recall the "I'm a Marvel/I'm a DC" videos on youtube... as Green Goblin told Lex Luthor "it's called 'staying true to the source material'... TRY IT, SOMETIME!"

I don't mind a revamp so long as it's not so big a change that they no longer what they used to be (kinda why I rarely buy Transformers figures anymore... well, the ones based off of the movie, anyways. I LIKED TF:A's figures, and I'm eagerly awaiting TF:P's... but the movie's figures... well, they eventually just started resembling one another, for the most part).

[mca19]

[quote name='GammaJetpunch' timestamp='1324197207' post='360846']
You should crap on it. It's called "giving an eff".


That is an interesting point. I may change my mind on these. I will buy one, just so I can crap on it. Even if that increases their sales, I'll feel a lot better. Or maybe I'll throw it in the toilet for my son's pee target.

I'm not offended by being called one of the "few" collectors. I'm just saying that is the category I fall into. They have absolutely ruined every toy line these companies try to remake. I wish they would just leave good enough alone, and create the same type of figures, but new animals. They would make a killing with new and older collectors. Plus I think there are more people annoyed with this than there are people excited about this. Any way of getting a count going to see if I'm wrong?

Edited by mca19, 21 December 2011 - 06:12 PM.

[fourth_heir]

Based on the various random friends I've had linking me to those proto pics over the last few months (none of them are BB collectors themselves but they know of my interest), it seems that new collectors might prefer them.

Example quotes from friends when I mentioned how they weren't being particularly well received here at LRG...

"Seriously? But these moulds are remarkable! I'd snap them up if I saw them in shops"

"That's more than a little idiotic, given that the odds of such an obscure property ever being revived were slim-to-none. They're honestly complaining about the lack of a forced Rock-Paper-Scissors gimmick? Wow."

"If each individual figure would have such a high level of quality and character, then I'd love to see the line make a comeback. Such effort should be rewarded."

Personally, I'd agree with such sentiment - you can really only successfully sell such retro style toys to the adult collector market. Much as I love them, oldschool Beasts probably wouldn't hold their own on the shelves of TRU these days.

[Chicken Holiday]

Hell, they brought back Futurama so anything's possible!

If the old style Battle Beasts wouldn't sell so well amongst todays toylines, do you think a relaunch in a more detailed art-style model would sell? Something along the lines of a Kidrobot campaign? They would not be sold as "toys" but as "art" to the adult demographic.

[GammaJetpunch]

That is an interesting point. I may change my mind on these. I will buy one, just so I can crap on it. Even if that increases their sales, I'll feel a lot better. Or maybe I'll throw it in the toilet for my son's pee target.

I'm not offended by being called one of the "few" collectors. I'm just saying that is the category I fall into. They have absolutely ruined every toy line these companies try to remake. I wish they would just leave good enough alone, and create the same type of figures, but new animals. They would make a killing with new and older collectors. Plus I think there are more people annoyed with this than there are people excited about this. Any way of getting a count going to see if I'm wrong?

I was going to say something bad about this, at first (since it IS a bit rude and immature) but then, I read some more, despite being woozy from some Tylenol PM.

I can't tell if you're agreeing with my statement about leaning towards the old designs to appeal to both older and younger collectors ('cause, ya know, paying tribute is an awesome way of saying "thank you, last generation, for paving the way... we'll add some stuff in as a proverbial love letter to you awesome guys, to show our thanks"), or if your agreeing with Waronthewhatever (who, I SAW lamely and lazily edited his posted by adding in "dozen"... wow *slow clap*) on how "new designs" and utter aberrations from a workably-good idea will make moneymoneymoney!

I mean, Wizards of the Coast thought changing up D&D for 4th Edition would be a great idea, and make them MUCH money... it wasn't a great idea, on MANY various accounts on why they're failing miserably with 4E. And most of it was greed, in an economy who cannot willingly spend on more expensive hardcovers (that, and irritatingly simple-to-the-point-of-chafing mechanics, unnecessary changes [did they HAVE to get rid of 4 out of the 9 alignments? Why?! What was the point?!], ridiculous changes [classes being so balanced that ya mihght as wel not play any], STUPID changes [demons are 'elementals'? REALLY?! REALLY?!], promises that were constantly broken [psionics made too late, Far Realm material done sparsely, and inconsistantly, adding in certain clases and playable races far later from the product debut, etc.], products that were disappointingly bare-bones... EVEN THE ADVENTURE PATHS [single-handedly ruined Dungeon and Dragon "Magazines", which Paizo Publishing did a fantastic job on before they were booted out], and, me being a graphic designer, rehashing old pics from previous books... because they probably wouldn't have to pay the artists!]. Tch, even those who LOVED it (well, most of them) have slowly grown tired of it lack of versatility. Long story short, 4E MAY be around, but Wizards lost a LOT of money, and annoyed a good deal of the D&D fanbase with their "necessary, money-making" changes!

Then... there's Loonatiks Unleashed *shudder*. It's a diagnosis of "New demographics, when nobody asked for any".

Edited by GammaJetpunch, 27 December 2011 - 10:22 PM.

[mannakat]

I mean, Wizards of the Coast thought changing up D&D for 4th Edition would be a great idea, and make them MUCH money... it wasn't a great idea, on MANY various accounts on why they're failing miserably with 4E. And most of it was greed, in an economy who cannot willingly spend on expensive hardcovers (that, and irritatingly simple-to-the-point-of-chafing mechanics, unnecessary changes [did they HAVE to get rid of 4 out of the 9 alignments? Why?! What was the point?!], ridiculous changes, STUPID changes [demons are 'elementals'? REALLY?!], promises that were constantly broken [psionics made too late, Far Realm material done sparsely, and inconsistantly, adding in certain clases and playable races far later from the product debut, etc.], products that were disappointingly bare-bones... EVEN THE ADVENTURE PATHS [single-handedly ruined Dungeon and Dragon "Magazines", which Paizo Publishing did a fantastic job on before they were booted out], and, me being a graphic designer, rehashing old pics from previous books... because they probably wouldn't have to pay the artists!]. Tch, even those who LOVED it (well, most of them) have slowly grown tired of it lack of versatility. Long story short, 4E MAY be around, but Wizards lost a LOT of money, and annoyed a good deal of the D&D fanbase with their "necessary, money-making" changes!

Then... there's Loonatiks Unleashed *shudder*. It's a diagnosis of "New demographics, when nobody asked for any".

One of the only things that some people seem to like about 4th Edition, is that it makes being a DM a wee bit easier.

Though I agree, they didn't have to sacrifice flavor and individuality to make the numbers work. Granted, I do enjoy my hybrid tiefling swordmage/warlock... but if I had to play a class bare-bones, without multiclass or hybrid options in 4E..... I'd throw a hissy fit that would put a 2 year old to shame. Paragon paths are a joke, and seriously, most of them seem to have people die, or cease to exist. 'You've lived, you're badass... now be gone! No one will remember you or your exploits, you shall crumble to dust and be used to put out camp fires.'

To make things a bit better, our DM has been using older campaigns and plugging them into the new system (which... presents a lot of problems, as a lot of items can't be converted or even re-created in 4E, even worse with some of the monsters) so it will add something new, since most of our group hasn't played many of the older editions.

If DST can find a way to balance the old with the new, more power to em. Hopefully it's more an issue of pride, than greed.

Based on the various random friends I've had linking me to those proto pics over the last few months (none of them are BB collectors themselves but they know of my interest), it seems that new collectors might prefer them.

Example quotes from friends when I mentioned how they weren't being particularly well received here at LRG...

"Seriously? But these moulds are remarkable! I'd snap them up if I saw them in shops"

"That's more than a little idiotic, given that the odds of such an obscure property ever being revived were slim-to-none. They're honestly complaining about the lack of a forced Rock-Paper-Scissors gimmick? Wow."

"If each individual figure would have such a high level of quality and character, then I'd love to see the line make a comeback. Such effort should be rewarded."

Personally, I'd agree with such sentiment - you can really only successfully sell such retro style toys to the adult collector market. Much as I love them, oldschool Beasts probably wouldn't hold their own on the shelves of TRU these days.

The main reason why I have an issue with the Mini-Mates version, is simplicity.

For me, the figure is so simple it just looks odd. Something about it doesn't flow right, and I worry about how much variety they would be able to add between figures, and frankly... they just look bland (they certainly stand out, but I don't see the character that your friends see... or the quality) when put beside Gormiti, Ben 10, and Bakugan figures, and even those can be very hit or miss.
If I were looking at this item in the store, it would certainly catch my eye because of the name and the fact it's an anthropomorphic animal in armor. Outside of that? I'd be hard pressed to buy the figure.
If someone else bought it for me, I wouldn't toss it away or anything. But it would be a toy I'd always come back to, and probably never buy.

The older figures might be able to make it beside todays toy lines, if they were hard plastic and had a few details refined. Compared to the other lines at TRU, and some newer Hot Wheels additions, I don't see why the original figures couldn't be re-introduced with minimal changes. They are similar enough, but have enough differences that kids could get into (especially the 'animal' part of it. I can't think of a kid that wouldn't buy a set if it had an animal in it they loved or thought was cool looking).

Meh, I can see where the appeal for the Mini-Mates figures would be, but something is just missing. Unfortunately, it's that little something that is a big turn off for me. But it is a prototype, so here's hoping!

Edited by khaomera, 27 December 2011 - 11:14 PM.

[GammaJetpunch]

One of the only things that some people seem to like about 4th Edition, is that it makes being a DM a wee bit easier.

Though I agree, they didn't have to sacrifice flavor and individuality to make the numbers work. Granted, I do enjoy my hybrid tiefling swordmage/warlock... but if I had to play a class bare-bones, without multiclass or hybrid options in 4E..... I'd throw a hissy fit that would put a 2 year old to shame. Paragon paths are a joke, and seriously, most of them seem to have people die, or cease to exist. 'You've lived, you're badass... now be gone! No one will remember you or your exploits, you shall crumble to dust and be used to put out camp fires.'

To make things a bit better, our DM has been using older campaigns and plugging them into the new system (which... presents a lot of problems, as a lot of items can't be converted or even re-created in 4E, even worse with some of the monsters) so it will add something new, since most of our group hasn't played many of the older editions.

If DST can find a way to balance the old with the new, more power to em. Hopefully it's more an issue of pride, than greed.

Has your DM though about looking into Pathfinder? It's LITERALLY a tweaked, streamlined, and more versatile version of 3.5, yet it's more than just "3.75" now, such as adding "archetypes" to classes, which makes for more fun customizable options for classes. Ever wanted to be a Rogue that uses intimidating and muscle instead of wit and subtlety? They have that (the Thug archetype for the Rogue)! Wanted to be a Ranger who trains solely with a Hawk or similar bird, without having to wait? They have that (the Falconer archetype for the Ranger)! Wanted to be a fighter, but wanted to use either your fists, or just plain fight dirty? They have those (The Brawler and Cad archetypes for the Fighter)! And they have plenty more (For example I'm playing a Wizard who casts her spells... THROUGH A MUSKET! Love the Spellslinger). And the best part about archetypes is that, with the varying changes, they take certain things out to balance it out with the regular versions of each class.

One last thing about classes, now: Pathfinder made some necessary changes to csome base or core classes to make them seem less similar to each other (For example, a Sorcerer now has bloodlines, and bloodline powers and spells which vary depending on which bloodline, whereas the Wizard gains an arcane bond through an item or a familiar, and gains a few bonus feats, down the way.)

And the monster... they took cannon-fodder monsters and gave them "life" (Goblins have a crazed love for fire, get distracted easily, and have a maniacal streak that'd make a Gremlin smile... and Ogres... well... originally just dumb brutes, now... imagine Deliverance mixed in with The Hills Have Eyes... yeah, Ogres are THAT much more nastier in pathfinder).

If you wanna check more about Pathfinder, check out the Pathfinder SRD. A HUGE database on all the mechanics, rules, stats, etc (but all easy to read and understand).

Edited by GammaJetpunch, 27 December 2011 - 10:53 PM.

[mannakat]

Has your DM though about looking into Pathfinder? It's LITERALLY a tweaked, streamlined, and more versatile version of 3.5, yet it's more than just "3.75" now, such as adding "archetypes" to classes, which makes for more fun customizable options for classes. Ever wanted to be a Rogue that uses intimidating and muscle instead of wit and subtlety? They have that (the Thug archetype for the Rogue)! Wanted to be a Ranger who trains solely with a Hawk or similar bird, without having to wait? They have that (the Falconer archetype for the Ranger)! Wanted to be a fighter, but wanted to use either your fists, or just plain fight dirty? They have those (The Brawler and Cad archetypes for the Fighter)! And they have plenty more (For example I'm playing a Wizard who casts her spells... THROUGH A MUSKET! Love the Spellslinger). And the best part about archetypes is that, with the varying changes, they take certain things out to balance it out with the regular versions of each class.

One last thing about classes, now: Pathfinder made some necessary changes to csome base or core classes to make them seem less similar to each other (For example, a Sorcerer now has bloodlines, and bloodline powers and spells which vary depending on which bloodline, whereas the Wizard gains an arcane bond through an item or a familiar, and gains a few bonus feats, down the way.)

And the monster... they took cannon-fodder monsters and gave them "life" (Goblins have a crazed love for fire, get distracted easily, and have a maniacal streak that'd make a Gremlin smile... and Ogres... well... originally just dumb brutes, now... imagine Deliverance mixed in with The Hills Have Eyes... yeah, Ogres are THAT much more nastier in pathfinder).

If you wanna check more about Pathfinder, check out the Pathfinder SRD. A HUGE database on all the mechanics, rules, stats, etc (but all easy to read and understand).

I know he looked over Pathfinder, and for whatever reason didn't like it or want to pursue it. He's been playing since 1st Edition, and is... well, stubborn about certain things.

Haven't looked into PF myself, but it sounds pretty interesting. At the very least, more options for classes (even if they're not the best options!).
I have to say, I've been very disappointed by the lack of class features and support in 4E. Changing some from Primal to Marshal, and yet giving little to no powers and feats once the changes were made? So many classes without viable, or with heavily circumstantial powers... which the older editions could be notorious for, yet somehow they made them worse (especially when you kept advancing in level) in 4E.

ATM it would be impossible to try PF, but if 4E keeps on chugging along on the same broken track.... Might have to request a switch.

[fourth_heir]

The main reason why I have an issue with the Mini-Mates version, is simplicity.

Simplicity sells - 'block figures' are very 'in' right now, however...

For me, the figure is so simple it just looks odd. Something about it doesn't flow right, and I worry about how much variety they would be able to add between figures, and frankly... they just look bland (they certainly stand out, but I don't see the character that your friends see... or the quality) when put beside Gormiti, Ben 10, and Bakugan figures, and even those can be very hit or miss.

...my friends weren't describing that mini-mate one-off (curiously, none of them have ever linked me to that - even the one who's an epic mini-mate fan), rather the bigger figures seen here, so you've been looking in the wrong place for the character and quality that caught their eye.

If I were looking at this item in the store, it would certainly catch my eye because of the name and the fact it's an anthropomorphic animal in armor. Outside of that? I'd be hard pressed to buy the figure.
If someone else bought it for me, I wouldn't toss it away or anything. But it would be a toy I'd always come back to, and probably never buy.

The older figures might be able to make it beside todays toy lines, if they were hard plastic and had a few details refined. Compared to the other lines at TRU, and some newer Hot Wheels additions, I don't see why the original figures couldn't be re-introduced with minimal changes. They are similar enough, but have enough differences that kids could get into (especially the 'animal' part of it. I can't think of a kid that wouldn't buy a set if it had an animal in it they loved or thought was cool looking).

Indeed - one of the reasons that my friends anticipate the potential success of a BB relaunch is the general lack of animal based toylines at the moment.

Meh, I can see where the appeal for the Mini-Mates figures would be, but something is just missing. Unfortunately, it's that little something that is a big turn off for me. But it is a prototype, so here's hoping!

There is definitely a market for small scale figures like the Beasts (lego, mega-bloks, character building and playmobil - I think there's even a mini MLP line - all sell blind bagged minifigures very profitably) - it's just that the old figures lack the 'personality' seen in most modern toylines - something more characterful like the seemingly larger sculpts I linked to above would be more successful on the modern market.

[mannakat]

Simplicity sells - 'block figures' are very 'in' right now, however...

Indeed it does, they just look too weird to me in such a simple style. But!

...my friends weren't describing that mini-mate one-off (curiously, none of them have ever linked me to that - even the one who's an epic mini-mate fan), rather the bigger figures seen here, so you've been looking in the wrong place for the character and quality that caught their eye.

I'd almost been hoping they were talking about those, but since most this thread seemed to be conversing about the Mates version I'd assumed it'd looped back towards those again. Well the saying about assumptions is true
Though I can agree with your friends sentiments with that cleared up!

There is definitely a market for small scale figures like the Beasts (lego, mega-bloks, character building and playmobil - I think there's even a mini MLP line - all sell blind bagged minifigures very profitably) - it's just that the old figures lack the 'personality' seen in most modern toylines - something more characterful like the seemingly larger sculpts I linked to above would be more successful on the modern market.

True indeed, been excited about the larger figures since earlier this year because they did have a lot of character (the gorilla is still creepy, looks like it should be a character in a new Rampage video game) and were such impressive sculpts.
Has been a bit frustrating since less has been shared about the larger figures, yet still see tons of stuff about the Mates version all over the web. Makes sense because they released more of those protos, but at the same time it's bothersome since DST has been pretty quiet since showcasing the larger figures.

[DSTZach]

Has been a bit frustrating since less has been shared about the larger figures, yet still see tons of stuff about the Mates version all over the web. Makes sense because they released more of those protos, but at the same time it's bothersome since DST has been pretty quiet since showcasing the larger figures.

Sorry we've been silent -- we've been trying to line up a couple of elements before launch, but we hope to have a nice announcement at C2E2. And Adam's right, those prototypes from 2010 were just an experiment, and we won't be moving forward with those.

[lord]

Sorry we've been silent -- we've been trying to line up a couple of elements before launch, but we hope to have a nice announcement at C2E2. And Adam's right, those prototypes from 2010 were just an experiment, and we won't be moving forward with those.

Thans for joining the community and letting us know some info. I hope you will be able to give us more news in the near future. Oh and I nearly forgot : welcome !

[DSTZach]

Oh and I nearly forgot : welcome !

Thank you! I haven't spent much time here, even though I'm also a casual MUSCLE/Kinnikuman guy and still have all my BBs from when I was a kid. I think I have an old ID from back in my ToyFare days, but I have no idea what it is now.

And I hope the product we make finds its supporters here -- our ownership of the name allows us to do certain things, but not other things, and some of what has been suggested simply isn't possible. (I don't even know what animals we COULD add to the old line!) We obviously want Battle Beast lovers to like what we make, as well as nostalgic adults and (hopefully) kids who've never even heard of Battle Beasts but think the name sounds cool.

[jkaris]

our ownership of the name allows us to do certain things, but not other things,

Are you able to give more details about this?

[Scar1321]

Well, for me what you've already put out was perfect! If there was just new animals made the same way, I'd be totally on board!

[mannakat]

Sorry we've been silent -- we've been trying to line up a couple of elements before launch, but we hope to have a nice announcement at C2E2. And Adam's right, those prototypes from 2010 were just an experiment, and we won't be moving forward with those.

Very understandable, for me it was more 'New figures.... NEW FIGURES! Must know more!...... D: But I find nothing!' that was a tad frustrating.

Though I've figured out what bothers me about the 'Mates version.
The chest pieces! It's not even that they lack an emblem... honestly it's not really even the 'chest' portion of the figure. It's that the waist was so thick/wide, it didn't break up that section of the figure well enough for me. One of those things where that's where my eyes wanted to focus, and for the wrong reasons.
Knowing that, the rest of the figure isn't as bothersome anymore.

Very excited to see where the series will go, and to know that it is being worked on one way or another!

[ironmask]

I'm hoping the figures will avoid the Mini-mates route and go with the other designs that DST had presented. Some might remember the figures from a while back, which I enjoyed quite a bit (I'll attach an image @ end of post, photo is not mine though) even if they were still a little over the top.

I just hope they know what they're doing, especially since the marketing and word-of-mouth about these figures has been pretty pathetic. A lot of unknowns.

I like the look of those. If they're in the 2" or under range, I'll buy some. If they look like the mini mates version, I'm also in the "Pass" category.

[adam16bit]

I like the look of those. If they're in the 2" or under range, I'll buy some. If they look like the mini mates version, I'm also in the "Pass" category.

I like Minimates. The only thing I find lacking in the Battle Beasts Minimates so far is that I've only seen one sculpt so far, I'd love to see a second or third because as far as I can tell the general personality of the old figures was captured pretty well.

...whatever it ends up looking like, all I hope for is this one wish: no more alligators, please. At least not for a while.

[DSTZach]

I like Minimates. The only thing I find lacking in the Battle Beasts Minimates so far is that I've only seen one sculpt so far, I'd love to see a second or third because as far as I can tell the general personality of the old figures was captured pretty well.

...whatever it ends up looking like, all I hope for is this one wish: no more alligators, please. At least not for a while.

I think the designers did a great job capturing the feel of the old figures, too. And I'm pretty sure we're done with the gator. The new designs are even cooler, and hopefully they'll win some Mate-haters back to the fold.