Subject:
|
Re: The Bar Does Not Go Down
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.dear-lego
|
Date:
|
Mon, 10 May 2004 20:54:35 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
4329 times
|
| |
|
|
I sometimes to wonder if Lego’s designers are all incompetent, but I often
convinced that they are not.
Sets like Red Baron’s Plane, Sopwith Camel, and many other shop at home
exclusives, show that there are some designers working for TLC that can build
great models.
However, the great sets seem to be few and far between these days. The HP line,
with it’s open designs, was disappointing to many people. However, it sold out
very fast when it was first released. Unfortunately, it seems as if the market
got sick of it. Harry Potter CoS sets that came out the following year seemed to
linger on store shelves longer and wind up on clearance much faster.
StarWars has some great set designs in a lot of places. It even had some very
successful ideas such as the Mini Line. However, TLC decided to release new
minis each year, with each new line costing more than the previous one. With the
second set of minis being 50% off on S@H, I would have to assume that the market
is sick of them by now.
Orient Expedition was pretty decent in a lot of ways, but those sets just hung
out on store shelves and sold poorly.
Why is everything doing so poorly?
I think price is the main reason. Minis for $4 are great, especially with 2
small models per package. Minis for $7 are a bit too much. Minis for $8 are
ridiculous. I won’t touch them.
Lego frequently sells tubs and buckets for about 2 cents per part. A typical
lego set generally charges 9-12 cents per part. Why the huge gap? I understand
that you are paying for the efforts to design the sets, but 5 times the price?
Besides that, in a typical minifig scale set, most of the parts are
significantly smaller than the average bricks you get in a bucket or tub.
The Creator/Designer sets really shed some light on this. With a creator set,
like the big Helicopter one, you are getting an incredibly well designed set,
with instructions for two more models and ideas for several beyond that. In
addition, you are getting the parts for about 7 cents each. All of the Designer
sets I’ve seen have been priced much worse than a plain tub of bricks, but
noticeably better than most minifig scale sets.
I believe moving the price down a bit more would be wise. Unfortunately, the
prices in 2004 seem to be higher than they were last year so I guess that idea
went out the window. TLC needs to reduce costs, but they keep doing something
they repeatedly tell us is an expensive process. Making new molds!
It’s okay to make new molds. People are usually excited whenever there is a new
minifig accessory or some other part that aids in building. However, there seem
to be too many one-use parts lately. The dewback. The yeti. The tiger thing.
Then there is this upcoming castle line with 5 new visors, a new sword, and a
new helmet. I’m sorry, but that just seems a bit excessive, especially since the
visors and sword are all pretty stupid looking.
Scorpion palace comes with a big onion dome top. Another large one-use part.
Then they even ruin it by making it so you can’t build a complete dome with two
of them. Did they even think of this for more than a couple minutes?
It’s almost as if they are no longer trying to sell Lego sets that you are
supposed to take apart and build other things with. It seems like they’re now
trying to sell static playsets that just happen to require assembly and come
apart easy.
Lego should be about making pieces that can be used in a vast number of ways to
build anything you can imagine. The poorly designed and one-use parts they make
lately are hurting set designs, costs, and replay value.
There needs to be more simplicity and elegance to this stuff. Air blazers was an
incredible design from just last year, so they obviously still have what it
takes to make cool stuff. Now they just need to make it affordable and slow down
on the production of strange un-needed parts.
TLC says they want to get back to their core values. Well, I’m waiting.
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: The Bar Does Not Go Down
|
| (...) You hit the nail on the head. I could not agree with you more. I hope that some one from TLC reads this. It could make them great again. Mark Wilson (20 years ago, 10-May-04, to lugnet.dear-lego, FTX)
| | | Re: The Bar Does Not Go Down
|
| (...) This has been a complaint of AFOL's since before Lugnet. Unfortunately, new parts (new molds) is part of Lego's strategy. They can patent new parts and copyright new sets (instructions) so that the competition can't copy them. Besides, every (...) (20 years ago, 10-May-04, to lugnet.dear-lego, FTX)
| | | Re: The Bar Does Not Go Down
|
| (...) I've said it before and I'll say it again: There is no such thing as a limited use part, set, or whatever. If anything is limited it is the imagination and innovation of the builder. -Orion (20 years ago, 11-May-04, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The Bar Does Not Go Down
|
| In lugnet.dear-lego, Anthony Sava wrote: Anthony, Coming from another industry driven by fan interest and marketing to children (video games), I can agree with a lot of what you say. TLC has made some very, very bad choices over the past couple of (...) (20 years ago, 10-May-04, to lugnet.dear-lego, FTX)
|
59 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
