Toys

[Dan From Smithville]

I know. But the owners of Marvel put a value on their name. They are going to stick it to others to put their name on a product.

This is correct. And due to the market they can. That doesn't make claims that the products are overpriced any less real.

One thing that they usually choose quality brands to bear their name since a shoddy product would reflect badly on them.

I don't think anyone is claiming these companies don't make strategically advantageous alliances or don't know where the butter for their bread comes from.

In fact the Monopoly games might be of slightly higher quality when they have an additional brand on them.

That's speculation. Possibly. Possibly not. I haven't seen any obvious difference other than the presence of branded characters and stories.

I know, it is easy to complain.

Especially when the facts support that.

My attitude is that if it costs too much then don't buy it.

And I do not. I can't. It costs too much. I got completely out of collecting anything I was interested in simply because I couldn't maintain and sustain collecting due to the costs. That seems to be a significant point arising from the complaint of the OP.

Trust me, other people will.

They do and this further drives up the prices in an artificially inflated market.

And even though I loved Star Wars and other such movies I never bought the branded products.

Maybe the OP is disgruntled because he has a child that he has to get a present for. That is perfectly understandable. He is unlikely to see the same value that his child sees.

That seems to be waving away the fact that these sorts of things are well overpriced for their costs of manufacture, distribution and sale. But that is what has become for the markets of a lot of what I see as non-essential expenditures.

I do my own share of wasteful spending for the value received. And sometimes that is only perceived value. I sometimes by a liter of Coke for about $3 at the conveniences store. If they started charging the same price for gas as they do for Coke, I would be outraged to pay $11.35 a gallon and wouldn't do it unless I had to. But I do need gas and I don't need Coke and am willing to occasionally pay what is a comparatively trivial sum for an indulgence in disregard of the larger picture that I am spending a lot of money on mostly water. And thus prices are sustained and even rise when a lot of us do that.

But the fact remains that these indulgences are getting more and more costly at the shelf and were overpriced based on the factors considered in this thread. Even with the factor of Covid on supply chains and materials production.

For me personally, the benefit of the enjoyment I receive for such indulgences is not worth the cost and I have gotten out of a lot of it or switched to things I enjoy as well or more and am willing to consume at sustainable levels. But I understand the complaints.