| |
With the recent Microsoft announcement, a number of us have expressed
opinions of varying negativity for reasons ranging from the well-founded to
the kneejerk. Similarly, following the implementation of the bulk sale
service, quite a few people voiced disapproval because of limited part
availablity, limited access by country, inadequate server resources, and a
host of other complaints. The Train competition was met with ridicule on
the grounds of copyright infringement and the knell of doom for Trains as a
system. Even the mention of a proposed build-your-own-set program has
generated more "they'll steal my ideas" posts than "boy, that's great" or
even "wait and see."
Is there anything TLC can actually do that won't piss us off? What would
it take for them to please the bulk of LUGNETers? Obviously, short of
giving us all the free bricks we could ever need, there's no panacea, but
can't we at least agree that we're on the verge of being better off
Lego-wise than ever before? Yes, Juniorization stinks. Yes, much of the
2001 product line is uninspired and uninspiring. Yes, it would be nice if
Brad et al could post to LUGNET 24/7. But these are things we have to deal
with, and given the other option (that is, continued disavowal of AFOL's at
large), can't we at least bide our time until all the votes are counted?
Why the rush to condemn every initiative attempted by TLC?
I'm mostly just airing my views, since I know the likely answers to most
of the above questions, and I've read through the various diatribes on the
respective subjects...
Dave!
|
|
Message has 6 Replies:
 | | Re: What would it take?
|
| (...) Here's where I disagree with you- I definitely feel that we are better off LEGO-wise than we were even as recently as, say, 1998 or 1999. The sets are better, with far less juniorization; we have bulk packs available, and more on the way; we (...) (23 years ago, 12-Jan-01, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.general)
| | | Re: What would it take?
|
| (...) I see your frustration, Dave!, and I'm sure others feel the same way. We've seen a lot of negative reactions to stuff LEGO is or isn't doing. I know they're trying their best to do their job and to work with us, and I _know_ there is a lot (...) (23 years ago, 12-Jan-01, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.general)
| | | Re: What would it take?
|
| In lugnet.dear-lego, Dave Schuler writes: <snip> (...) <Snip> I think alot of us are still bitter over the introduction of juniorisation nad the change in marketing strategy. I think for many, it came as a total surprise. Most of us grew up during (...) (23 years ago, 12-Jan-01, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.general)
| | | Re: What would it take?
|
| (...) Hey, I resemble that remark :-) Actually, my groan isn't knee-jerk at all. I've been programming computers since about the time Microsoft bought MS-DOS and then foisted it upon the world. They got where they are on IBM's name, not their own, (...) (23 years ago, 12-Jan-01, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.general)
| | | Re: What would it take?
|
| No. TLC wants to make money. If a partnership with Microsoft (which as myself and obviously some others agree, is a vile and worthless armpit of a company) will help TLC, then they will form a partnership with Microsoft. If diversifying their (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jan-01, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.general)
| | | Re: What would it take?
|
| "Dave Schuler" <orrex@excite.com> wrote in message news:G72BJq.L6y@lugnet.com... (...) to (...) a (...) would (...) deal (...) at (...) I'm glad you brought this up. I agree most of what you're saying here. This is, BY FAR, the most significant (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.general)
|
19 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
