Subject:
|
Re: LEGO Company Welcomes Adult LEGO Enthusiasts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.lego.direct
|
Date:
|
Thu, 7 Dec 2000 02:33:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
9448 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Jonathan Mizner writes:
> But what about the BAD effects? I hate to
> say this, but do you know how many people are going to be selling cheap
> copies of any old set without a specialty printed part? MILLIONS!
Ok, I'm not sure how it's bad yet...
> I was
> about to buy a $20 Solar Power Transporter on eBay, but now that I read the
> press release, I might not.
That's because you might be able to get one cheaper, I assume? Is that bad?
I'd call it good...
> All of a sudden the distinguishing factor in a
> Lego auction is the instructions, which can be ordered from Lego at $2 each
> (in color for recent ones).
That's actually pretty good, too, since now I can buy the instructions (or
get 'em off brickshelf) pretty cheaply and get the sets I might want.
> So much for Lego eBay. And there goes
> Sanburnsystems, and Brickbay, and any other loose part selling site.
Um... that's bad? Sure, maybe it's bad for them, but really, I tend to think
of those businesses starting up for lack of Lego's response to the demand.
And if Lego would theoretically be soaking up the profit that those groups
were making, isn't that good too, since we all want Lego to do well?
Personally, if Lego offers me something more reliable with more availability
(that's quantity mainly) and at cheaper prices (with easier payment methods
often), I think that's a good thing all around...
> Also, what will happen to LUGNET?
I didn't get the jist at all from that message that LUGNET would be under
any obligation to change itself, or that LUGNET's groups should be moved to
something official... Did I miss something?
> I mean, if some parent comes onto Lugnet from
> Lego, and sees the Spamcake messages, they might be scared (or at least
> worried about the sanity of the people who wrote the messages) because they
> don't understand. Lugnet is a (relatively) small community. How will it be
> affected by being exposed to the rest of the Internet?
Well, that's hard to avoid. But really, if someone's going to get offended
at something some particular person says or does on LUGNET, holds LUGNET
responsible, and then in turn holds TLC responsible, chances are that
person's gonna get offended by something TLC's gonna do ANYWAY. Most people
would probably think "gosh, what a jerk/wierdo" and leave it at that. Some
might never look at LUGNET again. And far fewer will actually go to Lego and
raise a stink. And even if they do, TLC can just tell them that LUGNET is a
seperate entity. And if they still press the issue, perhaps TLC might not
link to LUGNET any more. But hey, that's a small loss for us comparitively.
Anyway, I don't think it's much of a concern. (But I do agree that this is
something that's potentially bad)
> I wish Henry or Todd
> would have told everyone about this sooner.
Nah. Just look at what happened with Bulk Ordering. Brad announced it, and
for months people were whining and complaining that it wasn't here yet, etc,
and building up their hopes, only to be let down (many of them). Should they
have even told us? I dunno. Certainly I admit I DO like KNOWING, but there's
a fine line to walk between causing commotion and building something with
the help of input, etc. And besides, if Lego wanted them to wait, or they
wanted to wait themselves, that's fine. I don't blame them for that choice.
> And what about Lego themselves? Does this mean that new themes
> development will cease in 2002 (or whenever) the new part availability
> service becomes available?
Uh, don't think so. Personally, I think that'd be rather risky and
potentially very dumb. I think that it's just kind of the next test phase
beyond bulk ordering, which has (I'd guess by what's going on) been a hit. I
mean, to date, the retail business has been their primary source of income.
I doubt they'll give that up in the hopes that suddenly their web system
will suddenly account for what they'd be loosing in the retail market.
> Will a few dozen theme designers be out of a
> job? I have had high hopes for quite a while about working for Lego
> designing new sets. Now it seems I need to look for different career
> posibilities.
Set designers? Nah, they'll still be around, see above. Model layout and
promotional designers, etc? Yeah. But that's got little to do with this
change. I'd say they're more due to be lost thanks to the losses being made
in 1998 and 2000. If anything, if the company's doing well in 2002, maybe
you'll have a better shot at being hired :) (yet another reason we want Lego
to get as much profit as possible)
> Overall Lego will be making millions, because now I can
> custom build anything I want, for a nice fee of course. Anyways, what will
> happen to everyone having unique models? If Mark Sandlin builds a cool
> little shuttle, and I like it, all I need do is order it from Lego, and
> suddenly Mark's Lego design is mine.
Well, that's provided that Mark gives you the instructions to the
Spiffcraft, in which case, it could be yours anyway. Now you just have
another place to get it. Doesn't seem to make any difference as far as I can
tell, except that it's just easier for you to get what you want, with the
profit going to Lego. And isn't that good?
> Will anything ever be the same? All
> of a sudden those dreams about alternative Ice Planet models on store
> shelves will come true... Only time will tell what will happen to Lego...
>
> P.S. Does this mean all of these Lego sites will be able to remove those
> "not affiliated with the Lego Group" signs?
I'd doubt it. Actually, I'd expect the reverse; that they'd become stricter.
After all, if they're acknowledging other fan-related stuff, they'll want
even more for people to realize that it's not a Lego-endorsed product/site.
Anyway, maybe that was just a knee-jerk reaction from you... really, I only
see two possible bad outcomes from this movement:
1. the plan may fail. Maybe there just aren't enough AFOLs and original Lego
hobbyists to support the costs of providing custom models online. Might
happen. And that's really potentially major. If Lego prepares itself, it'll
be OK, and we'll just be back to where we are now (no loss), but perhaps
there'll be a lot of money lost, in which case, with the major losses in
2000 and 1998, maybe it'd be a big blow. Hopefully not. Certainly your above
concerns would point to the opposite though. And personally, I'd agree. I
think it'll only help them. I hope that like bulk ordering, it'll be a
collosal hit and they'll get backlogged from rampant orders, make tons of
money, and offer us MORE of what we really want.
2. some people may be offended at fan-related stuff now that Lego seems to
be endorsing it. And as far as I'm concerned, small beans. If we as a
community and Lego as a company try to make it clear to MOST people that the
two entities are not the same, there really shouldn't be that much loss as
far as I'm concerned.
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: LEGO Company Welcomes Adult LEGO Enthusiasts
|
| (...) You know, I was curious about this. So I emailed my friend Neil-- (as an aside here, Dave knows Neil, but to bring the rest of you up to date: I went to college with Neil, and we still play RPGs and wargames together on a regular basis. Neil (...) (23 years ago, 7-Dec-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: LEGO Company Welcomes Adult LEGO Enthusiasts
|
| (...) Oh. My. I just can't help but feel that everything is about to change WAY to quickly for any of us to keep up. OK, I have to much to write, and to little time to write it (or type-who cares). Don't you guys realize what this means for all of (...) (23 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
231 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
