Subject:
|
Re: !!!IMPORTANT!!!-SPUDS No fault of TLG-!!!IMPORTANT!!!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general, lugnet.dear-lego
|
Date:
|
Sat, 24 Feb 2001 11:53:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3034 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Tim Courtney writes:
> "Mike Cormier" <jcormier@stfx.ca> wrote in message • news:G98BDD.92q@lugnet.com...
> > We at Lugnet have, IMO, been far too critical of TLG. The opening page says
> > that Lugnet "has been called `the friendliest place on the internet". Not to
> > TLG. Perhaps new sets don't look as good, but many, if not most, lugnites • buy
> > sets for the parts. Lately we haven't been giving TLG the credit they • deserve.
> > They have an extremely difficult job, trying to please such a large • audience.
> > The so-called "SPUD" seems to be the ultimate solution. The younger audience
> > can use them more easily, and the Lego expert can find other uses for them. • But
> > only if he/she wants to. Lego is evolving, and so must our mindset. There • are
> > wonderful creations out there. Let's build more.
> > Mike C.
>
> I agree that we've been far too critical of TLC as a group. But, I disagree • on
> SPUDs being any sort of 'solution.'
>
> When I chilled at Erik Olson's place just two weeks ago, he showed me a set • that
> I don't own...it was the 'Bridge To Nowhere' or...the City Center bridge set.
> In this set, was a 2x4x3 brick!! I cannot understand for the life of me what • is
> so hard about stacking 3 2x4 bricks on top of each other. If mold costs are • so
> high, they really should NOT be making parts like this.
>
> That's just one of many examples I can use, but for the sake of time, I won't.
>
> Juniorization is still a present evil in the LEGO product line. People have
> explained to me (from TLC) that its an effort to transition between Duplo and
> System. Fine - I can understand the need for that, but I believe they are
> concentrating way too much on those products.
>
> I'm a firm believer in the original LEGO system of play. Some of the products
> we've seen stray too far from it, and some parts they make new molds for are • too
> redundant. An unnecessary and imprudent move in my opinion for a company who
> lost USD 75m last year.
>
> In the past few years we've seen the number of new parts introduced go up, at • le
> ast its percieved that way (anyone care to do some actual figures?) Most of
> these parts are painfully over-simplified rehashings of old tried and true
> parts.
>
> I think that LEGO is sinking to the level of the intellectually slumped kids
> from the entertainment industry and the video game generation. And I believe
> that LEGO can do just fine while continuing to fulfil its original goal of
> providing stimulating and constructive play for children. Somehow I can't
> justify Juniorized sets as 'constructive.'
>
> And I've observed kids in toy stores, talked to kids, and talked to parents.
> They notice that LEGO products aren't the high caliber they have been in the
> past. Then I usually sigh in agreement and frown as I tell them that the • whole
> subject probably wouldn't fit in a couple hour lecture.
>
> I've posted my feelings about Dacta before to these groups, so I won't go too
> into detail with them. Basically, Dacta being the educational wing of LEGO, I
> think they would do themselves good to push that in schools more. Kids will • be
> challenged by the complex models and problem solving techniques and then want • to
> play with LEGO at home. And they'll want to play with the advanced LEGO, not
> the Juniorized stuff.
>
> Kids do want to be challenged, but they're also victims to a greedy
> entertainment industry which sucks the willpower out of their minds. And, • that,
> sucks.
>
>
> As AFOLs, we want LEGO parts like they used to make them, sets that facilitate
> the aquisition of parts fundamental to large construction projects we like to
> build. But, as they continue to mold more and more parts, SPUDs, POOPs, etc,
> we're less able to customize stuff, or at least have to pay more to get the
> fewer fundamental parts.
>
> LEGO's target market has and always will be kids, except possibly in niches • like
> Mindstorms and Technic.
>
> They think they have to simplify things to keep up with kids, I disagree. I
> believe that if LEGO remains true to its roots and the vision of the system of
> play, they can satisfy both the kid and the AFOL. And, I think that they • would
> have a lot longer term brand strength, association of the brand with quality,
> and profits.
>
>
> LEGO has announced a goal of theirs, to become the strongest brand among
> households with kids by 2005. How will they go about doing that? Licensing,
> diversifying their product line, etc. I believe that eventually they will
> dilute their name and product so much that people will become sick of seeing • the
> name everywhere, and no longer be associated with quality products. If they
> focused a bit narrower, kept building on their strong system behind them, and
> promoted it, I believe the brand would have a stronger association with • quality.
> And I don't want to see LEGO become the next Nike of advertising....I don't • want
> to hurl when I see the bright red logo, like I hurl when I see the swish.
>
>
> As for LEGO Direct, I'm very pleased with their actions. After meeting the
> group of LD employees who have posted on LUGNET, I realize that they're AFOLs
> just like we are. That's a cool feeling. They ARE a business though, and as
> they say, if it quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, and walks like a duck, • it
> must be a duck. So, I don't expect them to bow down to the AFOL community in
> the least. But part of their mission is catering to the AFOLs, getting
> feedback, etc. We've seen that through bulk parts, events they've supported
> (PNLTC train record, Kidvention, numerous other train shows). These things • also
> take time, especially in a multi-billion dollar company that's as old as LEGO
> is. So, we as AFOLs need to be patient with the new developmets from LD, and
> not be so critical. Some of the comments - personal even - tearing down LD • and
> the employees are totally uncalled for. Like you said Mike, coming from the
> 'Friendliest Place on the Internet.'
>
> The sad thing is a lot of the people cutting down LD are very unfamiliar with
> their operation, the people, and what exactly goes on. I understand not
> everyone has the opportunities some of us have to talk to them and visit • there,
> that's life, unfortunately. But, what I do submit to those who like to cut • down
> LD is, those of us who have been there or been in communication with them, for
> the most part, don't have a lot of negative to say about them. That should • say
> something, the way I see it.
>
> So.. in summary:
>
> Juniorization: Bad - when not put in proper perspective
> LEGO System of Play: Very Good
> LEGO Direct: Good
>
> That's my 2 studs worth... :-)
>
> -Tim
Yes, but the point of my post was to suggest that a beautiful creation would be
even better if it used a SPUD in a new way.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
37 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
