Wcloudx (kumo)'s Blog – Ramblings about Figures, Gunpla, & More!!

6 Responses to “Delayed Item(s)”

1. Hatchuu Says:
   February 17, 2010 at 5:04 pm | Reply

   This might be a good thing, I really wanted her to go with Alphard but I’ve been suffering from a lack of money.
   Maybe Alphard will have the same thing happen to her too.

2. glockenpop Says:
   February 17, 2010 at 8:43 pm | Reply

   I hope Alphard and Canaan end up releasing the same month.. good that April is the month where I only have nendos coming in. XD

3. Steve Says:
   February 17, 2010 at 10:13 pm | Reply

   First it was January, then February, then March and now this? I have to say that delays like this do not reflect well on the company. One month is fine, two is pushing it, any more than that is simply ludicrous. Perhaps they should try getting the figure right before they announce a release date and open pre-orders.

   My main fear in this particular case is that the rod that holds the figure up is causing problems due to the angle and weight distribution. If that’s the case, I’m glad they’re delaying it rather than releasing it sub-standard, but as said above… problems like that should be well and truly out of the way before they start asking people to commit to buying it.

   • Figure Maniac Says:
     February 17, 2010 at 10:32 pm | Reply

     In the words of Shigeru Miyamoto, creator of Super Mario, Donkey Kong, and Zelda, a delayed game is eventually good, a bad game is bad forever. So you can apply that to the figure industry too. I’d rather wait a little longer and let them get the figure right then rush it out to market and the colors or crafsmanship is wrong. More time to save money right?

     • Steve Says:
       February 17, 2010 at 10:45 pm

       That’s true, and you’ll notice that I did say I’d rather they delay it than release a sub-standard product. That wasn’t my point. My issue is that – unlike Nintendo, or indeed any of the notoriously delay-happy game studios – figure manufacturers put a more specific release window on a product without, it would seem, having any idea when the figure will actually be ready. Delays are inevitable and, yes, healthy in the long run… but they should be more transparent to the consumer.

       If GSC had said – as a game studio would – that this figure would be released in the first quarter of 2010, they’d still be in that window. A specific date (or even month) should only given when there is a degree of certainty that the date can be met. Within reason, there may be delays. This is pushing “unreasonable”, but could all have been avoided by a better set of professional standards in terms of release promises.

       It’s all about making the troubles of production somewhat less visible to the consumer. The eventual release date is the same in either case, but if consumer disappointment is minimised then the company maintains a better public image. As it stands, GSC is developing a reputation for falling behind on release dates and that’s not a healthy public image, whether it’s for the right reasons or not (and, to be objective, we don’t know if they are – some people have suggested that they’re pushing Canaan back to focus on other more marketable figures, not to ensure quality).

4. lovelyduckie Says:
   February 17, 2010 at 11:24 pm | Reply

   I can be patient, I REALLY REALLY want this figure