TF Views

Apparently some guys from the Allspark aren't too thrilled about a 'no-name' place like us getting a Q&A and they didn't.

http://www.allspark.com/forums/index.ph ... opic=51707

I posted defending us a little bit, no real hostility (at least no more than was already there on their end) but I doubt I'll change their minds or anything.

Onslaught Six wrote:Apparently some guys from the Allspark aren't too thrilled about a 'no-name' place like us getting a Q&A and they didn't.

http://www.allspark.com/forums/index.ph ... opic=51707

I posted defending us a little bit, no real hostility (at least no more than was already there on their end) but I doubt I'll change their minds or anything.

I don't frequent allspark.com that often, so let em keep their hostility.

Oh, snap. Thanks for putting that link up, yo. That gave me a good laugh.

Also, good defense of the new place, too. I'd have backed you up there, but that would have meant registering at the Allspark.

(Shudder)

Yeah, I know. I had to exchange my soul to Satan for the membership and a $5 Hot Topic giftcard.

http://www.unicron.com/news_item/1501/

Something feels really dodgy about the whole thing, though. I dunno what it is. No Strika seems obvious--we've only 'just now' seen the lineart sketches, I would imagine her toy wouldn't be in the pipeline until at least after the movie.

I think what really gets me, though, is the Constructicons:

Contrary to Popular belief. We have no concrete plans for Animated Constructicon Product. Any drawings that support evidence otherwise are merely situational design explorations in the event that we one day decide to do them.

The capitalization of "Popular" in the first sentence (which is a fragment and should end with a comma), the awkward phrasing of "Animated Constructicon Product," and an oddly specific reference to "drawings that support otherwise" just reeks of something fishy here. Not that I don't trust Unicron.com's guys, but...yeah.

Also, weren't we told ages ago that they would both be Voyagers?

More sites' Q&As:
http://www.unicron.com/news_item/1501/
http://forum.idwpublishing.com/viewtopic.php?t=4777 (that one shocked me a little "which part JT, the fact that IDW wanted in or the fact that they use the earlier version of the forums software we have here?")
http://collectiondx.com/node/3017
http://16bit.com/ (they don't seem to have permalinks, but it's there for October 13th)
http://www.parrygamepreserve.com/archives/?m=10&y=2008 (ditto)
http://www.toymania.com/news/messages/10707.shtml
http://www.figures.com/databases/action ... e=663&nl=1

(oops, didn't see you guys' other posts before I added those)

I don't mean this to sound catty, but I was expecting these sites to have done something other than simply use the regular Hasbro logo for Q&A, seems so plain. I went and removed the green background, then added the 'bot and 'con faction logos behind it for our article.

Onslaught Six wrote:Huh. Inneresting. I've been following the GI Joe Q&As, see, and they don't have the semi-informal nature of these answers--I've never before seen them refer to "I" and "me," always in the plural.

Same with Star Wars, but I am not entirely surprised, TF has felt managed a little differently compared to the other brands lately. I did the Comic-Con '07 and '08 Hasbro panels for Star Wars and Transformers, heard about the '08 Marvel Hasbro one, and TF definitely has a different flavor. Also, since it's new to them, I suspect they're still finding their footing and voice, though with Q&A only every 2 months, it may take them a while to get there. One of the answers did refer 3rd person to Eric though, so maybe they're playing it differently.

Well, mostly your hard work. I mostly just sit here and bitch about stuff.

Perhaps, but if you guys weren't here bitching, we wouldn't have gotten this.

I thought it was revealed in the recent club magazine? Granted, some of us don't get it, but we at least know about the stuff that's in it. I think there's even pics (oh god are there pics? Please someone tell me there are pics and also link me to them illegally.)

Could be, I don't get the club magazine (I'm very anti-fan-club after what Star Wars did to its fans with that), I certainly haven't heard through others about it though.

I'm not all that concerned. I'm sticking with Aborted Walking Tank Mode. If you look, his robot feet can actually fold down in addition, which clinches it for me.

I know, but I want to hear their rationale for why it's out. Sometimes it's more informative to get them to answer questions you already know the answers to.

Prime_Wreck wrote:They said they made Galvatron deluxe due to two tank like vehicles being done in the larger scale. I guess if I had to throw a question in for the next round it would be why didn't they just drop the Scattorshot repaint, or simply wait to do Galavtron in a larger scale for a later wave. I already have a pretty good idea what the answer would be, but I'd have taken a larger version of Galvatron over a simple repaint any day.

Timing issues, they weren't sure what was going to hit when at that point, they schedule WAY in advance, up to a year and a half, and the timing on Galvs is a lot longer than a mere repaint. Still, I would have preferred they trusted the audience on that, maybe made Onslaught a dlx (I know, blasphemy, but I think that figure would be better served at a smaller scale).

onslaught86 wrote:Also at Tformers: http://tformers.com/transformers-hasbro ... /news.html

How the hell did they get names on the answers? That kills my theory right there.

Onslaught Six wrote:I wish these sites would collaborate their questions more--in the Cybertron.ca questions, they ask about other G1 reissues, which was already asked elsewhere, and on TFormers they asked about the QC issues we've been experiencing. They even give the same answer that they gave one of the other sites that specifically mentions parts popping off, which 'was' asked in the question at the other site.

I've been doing Hasbro Q&A since its inception over 2 years ago in the Star Wars line, and while readers always pine for such things, the reality is it's impossible. Nobody wants to share their good ideas with other outlets, risk getting skunked by having them ask a better version of your question without telling you, something like that. The reality is that by having this many outlets, we do risk stepping on each others' toes but we get a lot more questions asked overall. The number of Alternity, Alternators, and Masterpiece questions are frustrating, wasted opportunities, but with a good editor, situations like that can be minimized (this is what I do well, I make sure we don't end up asking a question that's likely to get asked by 3 other sites).

I wonder if our small size but generally kickass questions led them to give us better answers than some of the other sites--it sometimes feels like, reading them, the answers are pretty quick and straightforward-based stuff, because the questions are repetitive or downright stupid. Meanwhile, our questions generally seem to be of a high intelligence and kickassery level.

I believe Hasbro's employees are given the questions based only on the names of the editors who send it in, not the outlets themselves. We just happen to have kickass readers and a kickass Q&A editor. Not to toot my own horn too much, but I use the journalism education we got in junior high to make the questions meatier and tougher, thinkier if you will, and it can make a HUGE difference in how it gets answered.

I think it also helps that we discuss the questions and go through and figure out what we really do want to ask. I only pay vague attention, but I think the other sites just kind of have everyone throw stuff into a hat and then the admins pick a couple.

Absolutely, and it's something I believe strongly in, that the group needs to be involved with choosing and thus can enjoy the success on these as well as suffer the failures. By being invested that way, it helps focus everything much better than just 1 guy could do, I certainly couldn't ask these questions on my own.

EDIT: Kil on ATT posted a list of them (and included us, yay!) and there were four we didn't have:

http://www.actionfigs.com/index.php?cat ... cleid=2471

Hasbro wrote:That being said, there is no reason not to do a Dinobot combiner.

Yeah, no reason at all.

You do realize I posted that one dead first after our own, right? This is one area where my being a editor on 2 sites that aren't connected hurts, I had that question in mind and just didn't think to float it over here, if I had, it would have been in the question for sure to bolster it.

Onslaught Six wrote:Apparently some guys from the Allspark aren't too thrilled about a 'no-name' place like us getting a Q&A and they didn't.

http://www.allspark.com/forums/index.ph ... opic=51707

I posted defending us a little bit, no real hostility (at least no more than was already there on their end) but I doubt I'll change their minds or anything.

That's a shame. They could have been a part, the news about this Q&A was up on several sites ahead of time, I don't know why they didn't but they shouldn't bash us for being little. Please remember to represent us in a peaceful, friendly manner if at all possible, Dom doesn't want to get caught up in a site war. I don't need to bring others down to build us up. But thanks for speaking up for our group, I do appreciate someone speaking the truth about us. (I'm more annoyed that they think my work setting this up is just blogspot. )

I'm glad to see Adam Pawlus back us a little, he's a good guy, been a big part of the Star Wars fan community on the web for around 15 years now and I really appreciate that he recognizes our situation's neutrality and speaks to it.

Onslaught Six wrote:Yeah, I know. I had to exchange my soul to Satan for the membership and a $5 Hot Topic giftcard.

Well, at least you got a $5 gift card.

Also, weren't we told ages ago that they would both be Voyagers?

They only confirmed repaints in the pricepoint before this, I believe.

EDIT: Hey look, the question about Galvatron's 3rd mode, ToyMania asked it!

Q) Universe Classics Galvatron shows obvious signs that he was intended to have a third form. Was this third form completed and can we have official instructions on how to make it?
Answer: Initially, Takara had engineered Galvatron to be a triple changer (the third mode being a tank/walker vehicle) but that's not what Galvatron is. To me, he's a really large cool cannon. So I opted to drop the third mode and really concentrate on the two modes he has currently. Because the pieces were already engineered, Takara kept them in the toy. We do not call out his third mode but Takara might if they choose to in their release of Galvatron. My first sketches of Galvatron's alt mode were of a large cannon that took a lot of design ques from the G1 movie but had treds. A stationary cannon just isn't as fun to play with compared to something that can move and shoot.

JediTricks wrote:I don't mean this to sound catty, but I was expecting these sites to have done something other than simply use the regular Hasbro logo for Q&A, seems so plain. I went and removed the green background, then added the 'bot and 'con faction logos behind it for our article.

I noticed that. They might be leaving it alone due to a concern over representing Hasbro with unofficial logos or something. I wondered if you did yours or if they provided it.

One of the answers did refer 3rd person to Eric though, so maybe they're playing it differently.

Which one? There's always the theory that it wasn't actually answered 'by Eric' and someone else was referring to him.

I know, but I want to hear their rationale for why it's out. Sometimes it's more informative to get them to answer questions you already know the answers to.

True. I'd imagine it was scrapped because it'd look ridiculous or wouldn't be realistic.

Timing issues, they weren't sure what was going to hit when at that point, they schedule WAY in advance, up to a year and a half, and the timing on Galvs is a lot longer than a mere repaint. Still, I would have preferred they trusted the audience on that, maybe made Onslaught a dlx (I know, blasphemy, but I think that figure would be better served at a smaller scale).

I don't because HOLY CRAP HUGE ONSLAUGHT AWESOME. Besiding that, Rawley's info about Onslaught from the original proto post on TF.com indicated that he really, really wanted to make Onslaught a Big Toy.

How the hell did they get names on the answers? That kills my theory right there.

Ask them?

I've been doing Hasbro Q&A since its inception over 2 years ago in the Star Wars line, and while readers always pine for such things, the reality is it's impossible. Nobody wants to share their good ideas with other outlets, risk getting skunked by having them ask a better version of your question without telling you, something like that. The reality is that by having this many outlets, we do risk stepping on each others' toes but we get a lot more questions asked overall. The number of Alternity, Alternators, and Masterpiece questions are frustrating, wasted opportunities, but with a good editor, situations like that can be minimized (this is what I do well, I make sure we don't end up asking a question that's likely to get asked by 3 other sites).

I checked TFW's forum for what they were generally asking when we put our topic up.

I believe Hasbro's employees are given the questions based only on the names of the editors who send it in, not the outlets themselves. We just happen to have kickass readers and a kickass Q&A editor. Not to toot my own horn too much, but I use the journalism education we got in junior high to make the questions meatier and tougher, thinkier if you will, and it can make a HUGE difference in how it gets answered.

Mm, yeah, our questions were all pretty wordy and deserved wordy, good answers in return--because they were good, worthwhile questions. Mind, if I were asking these questions 'in person' I would've truncated them because that's how I talk. "What's the deal with Galvy? He feels like he should've been bigger."

Absolutely, and it's something I believe strongly in, that the group needs to be involved with choosing and thus can enjoy the success on these as well as suffer the failures. By being invested that way, it helps focus everything much better than just 1 guy could do, I certainly couldn't ask these questions on my own.

You do realize I posted that one dead first after our own, right? This is one area where my being a editor on 2 sites that aren't connected hurts, I had that question in mind and just didn't think to float it over here, if I had, it would have been in the question for sure to bolster it.

Oh, wow, I didn't notice that at all. Eheheh.

I agree, though, that a question about ZOMG WHAT ABOUT DINOBOTS THAT COMBINE wouldn't fly well over here, because...well, we all think the idea's moronic. I linked The Beast Within, for Hot Rod's sake.

That's a shame. They could have been a part, the news about this Q&A was up on several sites ahead of time, I don't know why they didn't but they shouldn't bash us for being little. Please remember to represent us in a peaceful, friendly manner if at all possible, Dom doesn't want to get caught up in a site war. I don't need to bring others down to build us up. But thanks for speaking up for our group, I do appreciate someone speaking the truth about us. (I'm more annoyed that they think my work setting this up is just blogspot. )

I know, regulating us to some shitty Blogspot site just hurts. (Even if that's what the main page does kind of look like. Err...)

I'm glad to see Adam Pawlus back us a little, he's a good guy, been a big part of the Star Wars fan community on the web for around 15 years now and I really appreciate that he recognizes our situation's neutrality and speaks to it.

Where was this? I missed it.

Also, weren't we told ages ago that they would both be Voyagers?

They only confirmed repaints in the pricepoint before this, I believe.

...No, the 'Animated' Constructicons. Animated's had tons of Voyagers. (Why am I suddenly using that term? I hate it! They're Megas, dammit!)

Part of me is thinking they may have misread the question as involving the Movie Constructicons. AniMixmaster and Scrapper don't fit into the "traditional" outlook of the Constructicons, and may not even be fully associated with that term internally.

Q) Universe Classics Galvatron shows obvious signs that he was intended to have a third form. Was this third form completed and can we have official instructions on how to make it?
Answer: Initially, Takara had engineered Galvatron to be a triple changer (the third mode being a tank/walker vehicle) but that's not what Galvatron is. To me, he's a really large cool cannon. So I opted to drop the third mode and really concentrate on the two modes he has currently. Because the pieces were already engineered, Takara kept them in the toy. We do not call out his third mode but Takara might if they choose to in their release of Galvatron. My first sketches of Galvatron's alt mode were of a large cannon that took a lot of design ques from the G1 movie but had treds. A stationary cannon just isn't as fun to play with compared to something that can move and shoot.

Good to know.

Inter-forum ill-will always annoys me. I appreciate Onslaught Six's restrained defense of our site. It's one thing to have a good healthy competition among websites and forums, but why would anyone get ticked off if their personal favorite forum gets left out of something? Enjoy the info from the other forums and try again next time. Slagging us off for being small seems immature, if nothing else.

Onslaught Six wrote:I noticed that. They might be leaving it alone due to a concern over representing Hasbro with unofficial logos or something. I wondered if you did yours or if they provided it.

They've been ok with other sites doing it for Star Wars in the past, so I didn't feel it was anything wrong. All the elements are Hasbro copyrights anyway. I was super excited to get the Q&A answers, so I felt it had to have at least a little visual something to signify it, busted out the photoshop and slapped that bad boy together. I really like it.

Which one? There's always the theory that it wasn't actually answered 'by Eric' and someone else was referring to him.

It's definitely referring to him rather than answered by him. It was at 16bit.com: "At the end of the day, Eric tries to manage cost with show accuracy and chooses what to do to make the coolest toy possible."

True. I'd imagine it was scrapped because it'd look ridiculous or wouldn't be realistic.

Turns out they didn't like the idea, felt it was unnecessary.

Ask them?

No need, they were obviously supplied when I thought about it, no way they could know 1 from the other if they were supplied generically.

I checked TFW's forum for what they were generally asking when we put our topic up.

One of those areas where readers can definitely be more efficient than site editors. However, keep in mind that just because we, or another site, has the OPTION of that question, doesn't mean that outlet will ask the question, they may hold off until the next round or something of that nature.

Mm, yeah, our questions were all pretty wordy and deserved wordy, good answers in return--because they were good, worthwhile questions. Mind, if I were asking these questions 'in person' I would've truncated them because that's how I talk. "What's the deal with Galvy? He feels like he should've been bigger."

In person, you can clarify, you can signify opinions with tone and gesture, you can go back-and-forth, but none of that is possible on the page, especially with Hasbro who doesn't like to do follow-up questions in Q&A. It's not just about being wordier, it's about fuller communication - to me, many of these questions are the bare minimum information to convey EVERYTHING in the question, I try to never do the kiss-ass stuff in a question because it just takes up time and distracts from the actual question. Plus, they know we luv's 'em!

Oh, wow, I didn't notice that at all. Eheheh.

It happens.

I agree, though, that a question about ZOMG WHAT ABOUT DINOBOTS THAT COMBINE wouldn't fly well over here, because...well, we all think the idea's moronic. I linked The Beast Within, for Hot Rod's sake.

We don't ALL think it, my idea came from discussion on BWTF! Sometimes the toys are cooler than the stories.

I know, regulating us to some shitty Blogspot site just hurts. (Even if that's what the main page does kind of look like. Err...)

The front page looks like Wordpress because it's my modified version of the default Wordpress theme. o86 said he was working on a look, but until then, I don't really have time. Plus, the WP theme looks like the forums, I like that continuity. But yeah, it does hurt.

Where was this? I missed it.

http://www.allspark.com/forums/index.ph ... &p=1039695

...No, the 'Animated' Constructicons. Animated's had tons of Voyagers. (Why am I suddenly using that term? I hate it! They're Megas, dammit!)

I misread your original point and answered to it as such, I was talking about Universe Voyagers (it was late).

Good to know.

Now I want to see what Takara thinks it should look like.

For reference's sake, I put all the Q&As together in alphabetical order in our news:
http://www.tfviews.com/news/main/hasbro-q-and-a/164


And I just checked the site stats, while Allspark's guys may be a little miffed that we got answers when they had a mixup with their own, they have sent by far the most traffic of any site recorded.