Subject:
|
Re: The Bar Does Not Go Down
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.dear-lego
|
Date:
|
Tue, 11 May 2004 02:23:21 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
4728 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.dear-lego, Rocco J. Carello wrote:
| |
In lugnet.dear-lego, Mark Wilson wrote:
| |
| |
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.
|
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
|
Thanks, I’m glad you appreciate my comments. I hope somebody from TLC will
read them as well. Unfortunately, I intended to post this off of the first
post in this thread so it would get good exposure and I guess I wasn’t paying
attention.
Anyway, I want to expand a bit on what I was saying.
We don’t need new parts right now. Lego should pick a year, 2005 would be
ideal, and work with the restriction that all new sets that year have to use
existing parts.
|
That really resounds with me. When an MOC or a design hailed by many as a work
of art, it is not because of the extensive re-working or introduction of a new
part. What is important is what you do with what you have, LEGO should be
following this principle too.
If a new part is introduced, it needs to address a construction
quality/integrity problem. When I returned to LEGO product as a customer in
1992, I noticed a few new parts that introduced great solutions that
complemented my pre 1985 product. They did not make shortcuts or faster
construction, just more solid and realistic construction from basic bricks.
The way new parts seem to be introduced in the last ten plus years seems to ask
the question, “How can we get the builder to the finished product faster with
fewer steps and bricks, and make it look more like something NOT made of LEGO
elements?” How crazy is that?!
The success of LEGO Bulk element sales, to me anyhow, illustrates the point that
LEGO sets cost too much to get the kind and quantity of parts BUILDERs want.
Some have even been tempted to the dark side, Mega Blocks, because sets are
available with real parts at low prices.
The only exception to non-standard parts not as usable in multiple constructions
that I am happy with are mini-figures (due to articulation issues) and the parts
and tools that clothe/accessorize them.
Certain mini-figure scale animals would be fine to mass mold, as they have been
with horses and cats for years. But the mentioned monsters from the Orient
Expedition Adventurers line, the Rock Raiders rock monster, or even the good-old
Dragon mold do not really need a dedicated mold. It’s a waste of expense for
LEGO, and relatively useless for most other projects.
Pre-fab construction walls or bits are unnecessary as all get out. Basic
bricks, plates, tiles and rounds really do a lot to inspire creations and are
cheap to keep producing. Sadly, Mega Blocks understands the desire to have
these in many construction and play sets. LEGO is going the route of Playmobil,
and Playmobil has nearly worked themselves out of the consumer market with
expense and over specialization. Can LEGO be far behind?
How many of us that have “Too Much Brick”, otherwise known as AFOLs, planned
life out so that it would include LEGO product beyond childhood? None, for
certain. we stuck to it because we like the formula and basic construction
ability with available parts.
A new part every now and again can be fun and it can fuel creativity to find a
use for it. Constant reworking and addition of new parts will serve only to
make it more difficult to find quantity and quality basic building elements.
Every year, every set, there seems to be a new part or color to get Wal Mart
type stores to see that it’s not the same product as last year. But is it
really that important and integral to getting it on the shelf??
What would be truly interesting would be to count up the number of elements
introduced within a production period and the profit generated by sales in that
period.
LEGO, people have been online for years now. You’ve seen what we build. You’ve
seen what we like and what we want. Act.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: The Bar Does Not Go Down
|
| (...) Well, around here, Playmobil has about two or three times the shelf space than Lego has. And it sells well, because the size/price-ratio is way better than Lego (even if one takes the differences in scale into account). Their big advantage is (...) (20 years ago, 11-May-04, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The Bar Does Not Go Down
|
| (...) Thanks, I'm glad you appreciate my comments. I hope somebody from TLC will read them as well. Unfortunately, I intended to post this off of the first post in this thread so it would get good exposure and I guess I wasn't paying attention. (...) (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
|
|
|
|
