 | | Re: Bad Policy #2 (Why all the secrecy, LEGO Direct?)
|
|
(...) I think it is quite pertinent, although at this point it might be more useful to ask why TLC is not producing NEW sets that supplement existing or previously popular themes. (I admit I AM biased in that I like the idea of having some pieces (...) (23 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Ball n' socket packs?
|
|
Third this for me! All in favor say "I". -- Kenneth A. Drumm Ph.D. "Bryce McGlone" <bmcglone@ditim.com> wrote in message news:GDCB15.6Hq@lugnet.com... (...) parts (...) (23 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad Policy #2 (Why all the secrecy, LEGO Direct?)
|
|
(...) That's a nice slip into quasi-rant mode, but it's rather nonsequitor. Regardless, yes, I might wonder if bricks and minifigures are "tired" (in terms of buyer interest) since LEGO continues to juniorize their product (ie pitch them at younger (...) (23 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad Policy #2 (Why all the secrecy, LEGO Direct?)
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) Eh? You mean "tired" like bricks? "Tired" like minifigures? "Tired" like accessory parts. "Tired" like just about anything that doesn't immediately gratify or amuse one and requires active user participation and creativity...?! (...) (23 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad Policy #2 (Why all the secrecy, LEGO Direct?)
|
|
(...) There's nothing contradictory about that. What may have been a bestselling line in 1989 may have been losing container-shiploads by the mid-nineties. And this might have happened even if the design of the sets hadn't gotten progressively (...) (23 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
