Subject:
|
Re: my biggest beef with the new product is...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 6 Dec 2001 18:27:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
689 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Frank Filz writes:
> Dave Schuler wrote:
> > That's indeed a clever use, but there's a considerable difference between
> > a shovel for which one finds another role and these pieces, for instance:
> Ok, how about these:
**snip of some modular but essential train elements**
> How many things can you build out of them? ... I tell you, there
> isn't very much use I can put these parts to in my castles and pirate
> ships.
True, but since LEGO Trains have mostly been niche market (that is,
they've never had as widespread a retail presence as SYSTEM (though Train is
of course the best longitudinal success story)), I don't think
train-specific parts are as relevant in this case as parts intended for mass
consumption. Further, there's a big difference between necessarily modular
electrical parts and parts that are modularized simply for the sake of it.
> Now it is true that highly specialized cockpit pieces quickly become
> old, but remember, one of Frederick's points was look at the kid who has
> a relatively small number of pieces. To that kid, each of those pieces
> (none of which can be built with pre-existing parts) may be a highly
> desireable part.
But years ago I *was* that kid, and I preferred to build with several
pieces rather than one. I know that the consumer mind of 20 years ago isn't
the same as today's, but the point remains. If you'd ask a child if he'd
prefer a one-piece component or the same component made of four or five
pieces, which would he choose?
I'm not (and I don't think Richard was, either) calling for an absolute
ban on modular or design-specific pieces, but I would like some sensible
moderation. I'm aware that TLC has to get its money's worth once the molds
are made, but the insidious incursion of juniorized parts into every arena
makes juniorization seem like TLC's underlying goal at the expense of set
versatility. Further, the continued company line that juniorization breeds
creativity, and that kids *want* lower piece counts, seems flatly ridiculous
to me.
By the way, I recently saw a ~10 year old kid choosing between a Harry
Potter LEGO set and a MegaBloks Battleship. Each was $20, and the kid
finally chose the battleship because, he told his mom, "it has more parts."
Should TLC base their marketing strategy on that one child? Of course not,
but they should keep in mind that not all children have mayfly attention
spans. At least one competitor has realized this...
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: my biggest beef with the new product is...
|
| (...) And the tail wags the dog-- they create the juniorized parts to save money, and then feel obligated to *use* them ubiquitiously to get their back their investment, and suddenly the parts are dictating set designs, not the designers. -John (23 years ago, 6-Dec-01, to lugnet.general)
| | | Re: my biggest beef with the new product is...
|
| (...) [...breaking back into the thread where I think my dot will look the prettiest!] I just want to give one example of the kinds of elements I was referring to: reference the big picture of LOM set #7317 and take a gander at those purple (single (...) (23 years ago, 7-Dec-01, to lugnet.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: my biggest beef with the new product is...
|
| (...) Ok, how about these: (URL) curved track 9v straight track 9v points 9v crossing 12v points 12v crossing 12v conductor rails How many things can you build out of them? (note that I left out the 4.5v/12v straight rail since I have seen some good (...) (23 years ago, 6-Dec-01, to lugnet.general)
|
19 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
|
|
|
|
