| |
> 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 the "Golden Age" of Lego (1980-1995). • We
> were all used to having quality sets that were fun to build, versatile, • good
> values, etc. There were few a regular themes that we knew would be back • the
> following year and the sets were available for 3 to 5 years!
>
> Now, themes change for one year to the next. The sets are juniorized,
> contain large parts that are of little use for anything other than their
> original function and contain less pieces (Yet the prices have remained
> higher). Some sets have a shelf life of one year or sometimes a couple of
> months! Some popular parts are more difficult to obtain, if not completely
> gone (For example, take vehicle doors. They used to be on practically • every
> Town set, now, we are lucky to get one vehicle with doors per year).
The "sets" Lego introduced were completely irrelevant to my collection. I
have so much money to spend. If Lego puts out good stuff, I buy that.
Otherwise, I buy DACTA and used Lego. It ebbs and flows. However, sets *do*
become important in terms of attracting and retaining kids new to the hobby.
I would never have gotten into Lego if I was a kid today because the sets
are so bad.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
19 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
