Subject:
|
Re: !!!IMPORTANT!!!-SPUDS No fault of TLG-!!!IMPORTANT!!!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general, lugnet.dear-lego
|
Date:
|
Sat, 24 Feb 2001 23:30:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1315 times
|
| |
|
|
Mike, I think you letter was 'well spoken'. I have a few points and questions
of my own to voice.
While it is a good idea to engineer sets made for smaller children to enjoy,
they should be able to use pre-existing parts in the sets they buy to
experiment, build other unique-per-kid creations. Composites, such as the car
frame monster-jack piece (10x4x??) and double- (or triple-) height basic brick
composites for non-decalling purposes hinder experimentation and the desire for
kids to want to expand on what is given to them.
My first LEGO sets came from the McDonald's premiums of ca. 1984. Then still a
Dukes of Hazzard fan, you'd be a surprised at what I was able to do with 2 of
the #1 set (a small red car or truck, I believe). My collection grew from that
into a mass that needs a gallon bag each to hold only my Red, Yellow, Blue,
White, Black pieces and quart and half-gallon bags for Minifigs, Slopes, Gray
pieces, and so forth.
I must first start of with a stupid question.
What are SPUDs and POOPs? I understand that the online LEGO community has
a catchy acronym for just about every composite piece, such as the 2 BURPs (Big
Ugly Rock Pieces). However, until I know the answer, a SPUD will be a Potato
(Apple-of-the-Earth to French speakers) and a POOP... well in the spirit of
clean speaking, we'll say it's self-explanatory.
As for the Bridge issue, I can only say the 2x4 3HBCs (triple-height brick
composites) were used in order to make the well-desired bridge not cost so much
it makes AFOLs, KFOLs and their parents broke trying to buy it. In that sense,
cheaper consumer cost defeats cheaper product. However, I disagree when the
cheaper composites are used on sets to lower piece counts, but the set is still
the same in price as one using unit elements, excluding inflation. Think about
that sometime, and let me know what you think.
James J.
Don't just "play well", play better!
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
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
37 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
|
|
|
|
