'Cause the marketing tie-in with GearZ is apt to draw in more casual modelers.
And if you have a pool of more casual modelers, why sink the money into masters for a 100% kit when you can save it with amortized masters for the majority, develop new masters just for the most obvious unique bits, get an 85%-correct model, and figure the remaining 15% probably won't even get noticed by anyone except the lunatic fringe?
Further proof, by the way, that a critical drubbing means shag-all to Revell's bottom line, or else we wouldn't keep seeing examples of this "meh, good enough" paradigm. And to be fair, they did try harder on the other three 2012 new tools.
**EDIT** - woopsie, guess we lost the question about why Revell would cut new steel just to produce a kit with so many discrepancies.
Edited by Chuck Kourouklis, 05 February 2013 - 04:23 PM.