| |
I've rearranged some of the remarks by Dave and James to separate the topics
that they cover. I've tried to preserve context and not misrepresent their
positions.
In lugnet.general, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.general, James Simpson writes:
> > The models of 10, 15, or 20 years ago were far superior in terms of realism,
> > details, and attractiveness.
>
> **snip**
**unsnipping to deliver more context**
> > Yesteryear: Garage Doors
> > Today: No garage doors
> > Yesteryear: Cars with doors and chasis you could build
> > Today: No doors, and one-piece chasis pieces
> > Yesteryear: Buildings made primarily from basic bricks
> > Today: Buildigns made primarily from POOPs
> > IMHO, by every parameter, Town, Castle, and Space sets of yesteryear were
> > designed with greater detail, attractiveness, and *care*. I'd wager that
> > almost every AFOL here would agree that set quality has dropped
> > precipitously since the early 90's. There has not been any System model
> > between 97-01 that can compare to the best sets of any year between 1978 and
> > 1996. What has changed for the better in the past few years is that Lego is
> > offering a more versatile range of elements, especially the old parts in new
> > colors. However, the irony here is that Lego chooses not to enhance set
> > design and playability with this great expanded range of parts; instead,
> > however, models are dumbed down and diluted by careless set design and over-
> > dependence of POOPs and BURPs.
>
> James has identified a fundamental problem facing LEGO in the current and
> future market. We're all aware (and some of us are great fans) of
> competitors in the construction toy market,
**snip**
> Every so often someone here posts an "I bought a clone set and it
> didn't suck" message,
Dave, I'm glad you raised this, but the clone brand experience cuts both ways.
SETS AND PARTS
It is only in the last year or 2 that one can say that the quality of the
clone sets and parts has improved. Anyone familiar with the older MegaBlock
sets (Western, Castle, Viking, Space Alien, Creature Seeker) would have to
say that they were the *ultimate* in POOPs, BURPs, SPUDs, and every other
kind of molded part one could think of. Buildings and vessels were one or
two enormous POOP/SPUDs tacked together.
MB seems to have changed its strategy to hit LEGO where it ain't: sets with
lots of pieces, very unjuniorized, marketed for an older audience than
before. The pre-2000 MB sets were not like that at all. And I doubt that
there are many people buying MB sets to keep as sets - they won't stick
together over time (more on this later). They are buying them as boxes of
bulk-bricks.
LEGO has been expanding its range of offerings in terms of sets. There are
more 2000 and 2001 lines than before, they are varied, and I think they are
more realistic. IMO the Star Wars sets are a big improvement in terms of
juniorization and realism over the past few years of space sets (Insectiod,
UFO, and Roboforce). And even some of those late 90s silly space sets were
unfairly maligned. Certainly some of them were great for parts packs. Also,
look at the UCS, Model Team, Technic, Robotic, Statue of Liberty-type sets.
Those compete well with the MB offerings in terms of set design, realism,
playability and attractiveness.
Boxes of MB and BestLock do have different and unique parts, but they are
often difficult to use in contexts other than the model that they came with
or very similar applications.
LEGO has also been expanding its range of parts not just in terms of color
but also unique items. The number of new parts available is staggering (the
big complaint of some LEGO "purists" is that LEGO is making too many new
pieces and not forcing people to make things out of red or white 1x2s). Yes,
they haven't yet replaced the parts that they lost in the late 90s as listed
by James. But I think replacements will be coming.
QUALITY OF PLASTIC AND FIT
> at least one of which has made
> great strides in providing huge quantities of basic bricks at considerably
> lower cost than LEGO. No, the quality isn't yet the same.
One can get lots of cheap basic bricks from the MB sets now on the market.
But IMO the quality of those bricks is so far below LEGO and the degree of
variance in molding, color, finish and fit is so significant that it is
difficult to use these for more than filling in around LEGO so that the MOC
will hold together. And I have not seen *any* improvement in the quality of
the plastic or the precision of production in MB over time.
My children taught *themselves* to discern a MB brick from a LEGO brick
because they were frustrated by trying to build with bricks that didn't hold
together and where the color shade changes significantly from one to the
next. Except for castle walls, noticeable color variations are unattractive
and that's what you get from MB. I tried to discourage them and tried to
defend the clones, because they are so much cheaper. But I finally had to
admit that the poor quality of clone bricks often turned out to be
infuriating and discouraging. I wonder how many repeat sales to children MB
has? I gave a MB set to a child as a birthday gift, and he was totally
turned off by the poorness of fit.
I would also say what I have not seen stated on LUGNET before, LEGO quality
has improved *dramatically* since my first set in the late 60s. Back then I
had many problems with plates warping and not fitting tightly, bricks
discoloring in a short period of time, etc. That is a very rare occurence today.
PRICE
> or observes that one can acquire over 650 grey 2x4
> bricks in a single $50 clone set, along with a horde of other grey pieces,
> rather than spending more than twice that amount at S@H. • *snip*
> At some point there will be nothing to distinguish LEGO from a clone except
> the fact that the clone charges $20.00 for a 700-piece kit while LEGO charges
> $89.99.
Let's face it, this is where LEGO takes the biggest beating. But I really
believe that if LEGO could deliver their product at a lower price they
would. This is not a stupid company. They know that their competitors have a
huge price advantage.
But, let's also face this, some silly books from the late 70s to the
contrary, *quality is **not** free*. If you need/want quality for your sets
or MOCs, you bite the bullet and buy LEGO. So when I want cheap bricks, I
buy LEGO on discount, not MB. Where you are filling in spaces, etc. you can
afford to use clone bricks as long as you use a sturdy LEGO frame to hold it
all together. But I very seriously doubt that clone brands will ever provide
the same quality at a significantly lower price than LEGO. Certainly they
have not done so thus far.
> That will be rather an ultimate moment for the market, I should think, and
> it should give LEGO considerable pause now, while efforts can still be made
> to reverse this trend.
LEGO is reversing trends in terms of set design. Maybe not as fast as we'd
like and maybe not in all of the themes we'd like. But it is happening.
Thankfully, they are not significantly reducing part quality and that is
going to keep prices higher than the clones.
Thanks for reading this far.
David Zorn
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: TLG and "Seeding"
|
| (...) You're telling me that you can use a 16x8x8 western-style shack in your space model? You're crazy! And that huge octagonal dome can be used in all sorts of huge octagonal dome structures! (...) This is generally true, but the same can be said (...) (23 years ago, 1-Mar-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands)
| | | Re: TLG and "Seeding"
|
| (...) I must disagree with you here... though I don't use clone brands currently, the highest quality clones I've seen date back to the 80s... I received a bucket of Tyco Superblocks as a birthday present when I was a kid. The quality of those (...) (23 years ago, 1-Mar-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands)
| | | Re: TLG and "Seeding"
|
| In lugnet.general, David Zorn writes a worthy exposition of things clone related. As Dave Shuler commented (see other also worthy reply) its a trade-off - for less money I can do more stuff I enjoy. I'm sold. I can't speak to clones other than (...) (23 years ago, 2-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: TLG and "Seeding"
|
| (...) **snip** (...) James has identified a fundamental problem facing LEGO in the current and future market. We're all aware (and some of us are great fans) of competitors in the construction toy market, at least one of which has made great strides (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.starwars)
|
81 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
|
|
|
|
