| |
In lugnet.trains, Gary Quinlan wrote:
> > > I was a bit bummed when I realized this message thread was not an
> > > announcement of new track but rather another discussion of something LEGO
> > > should do...
> >
> > I agree, I think the subject line could have been chosen a bit more clearly.
I still think this is a valid observation, helping readers figure out what
something is about is a good idea.
> > I also have a question about the images of the different radii track? Are these
> > new images or just recolors of the images that Ben Fleskes did? If they're new,
> > how do they differ from Ben's work? If they're Ben's work, was credit given to
> > Ben and to the others he based his work on?
I am still interested in the answer to this question.
> > That aside...
> >
> > I would love to see LEGO step up and play trains with the big boys by enhancing
> > the track line. I just don't see it happening, but I would love it. I think we
> > fool ourselves when we think this market is big enough to support the tooling by
> > LEGO under current ROI assumptions (we assume they're using). It's not,
> > according to my guess work. That's not to say it couldn't be profitable if we
> > were willing to pay higher prices, or if LEGO could figure out how to sell more
> > successfully.
>
>
> Well I suppose I should not expect LEGO to make any moves towards providing
> tracks that would, I think, be a worthwhile investment.
Unfortunately, I think you shouldn't expect that, for reasons that have been
given, until they become a different (my view: better) company with respect to
how they serve smaller market segments. Which they haven't yet done to the level
we'd like.
> Silly of me to expect
> others on LUGNET to agree that new track geometry would be something worthwhile
> and asking for a show of support.
No, it's not at all silly of you, per se. And you have gotten that very support
that you seek, in my view. My read is that the posters all agree it would be a
good thing if it happened. Don't confuse "would be a good thing" with "ready to
march on Billund with pitchforks in hand" though, that's all that's being said.
> Instead there has been a majority of replies
> basically saying that it's old news not worth really responding to. I'm reminded
> that I'm a fool
Didn't see any of that at all. And if anyone said that its inappropriate.
> and that the niceties of posting on Lugnet are more important
> than getting some sort of ground swell happening.
Or of that. Don't confuse suggestions that observing the niceties (like giving
credit where it may be due) is important with the idea that they are
overarching.
> Not being a seasoned writer of posts on lugnet I was not aware of just how
> quickly you get the feeling that your point of view is not really appreciated.
Or of that. All points of view ought to be appreciated. But don't confuse
appreciation for a point of view with adulation for presenting something.
> Yes, it is true that if we did a poll on what LEGO should make there would a
> list that could stretch from earth to the moon. And I probably don't have a clue
> how LEGO decides what they will market and what really sells.
Neither do any of the rest of us. All I do know is that they only sometimes make
what I want (the TTX set being a good example, I want more of that sort of
thing, and good sets with no new parts are doable on a relative shoestring), and
they often do things that confound most AFOL's ideas of what a good thing to do
might be (Galidor being a good example, bad sets with a lot of new parts with
huge flashy promotional backing are the antithesis of "shoestring").
> What I do know is
> that I've been using Lego for over 40 years and I have steered many young people
> into appeciating the wonders that can be done with the plastic brick.
Me too, although unlike (I'm guessing) you, I had a dark ages. but I'm back and
promoting/playing/enjoying LEGO with a vengeance.
> And I know
> I'm not alone, as I have also spoken to many others just like me (actually
> spoken face to face) and we often scratch our heads and wonder why LEGO never
> quite seems to get the idea that there is actually a fairly large group of us
> out there (I'm including the silent majority here).
Me too. We ARE a fairly large group in absolute numbers or dollar sales, just
not a RELATIVELY large group compared to the total market. But LEGO apparently
hasn't figured out how to create products that require this level of tooling for
markets that they feel are 5% or less (that's where they peg the entire AFOL
market) of their market, much less 1% (my guess is trains is at best 20% of the
TOTAL market that AFOL's take up).
OTHER companies have figured it out and made money at it. But until LEGO does,
showing that there's a groundswell of support, while interesting, IS old news in
that it's been done already. Doesn't make it wrong, doesn't mean you shouldn't
post it, just means that you shouldn't expect everyone to greet it as a brand
new revelation that's never been heard of before. Especially when you won't
answer where you got the images from...
> But I have this sinking
> feeling that to actually get a bit of support is not that easy to do. Maybe I
> should leave it to others to let me know what I want out of my hobby.
Hardly! You should do what you want to do. Just don't expect to tell others what
THEY should get out of the hobby, it goes both ways.
> This post will probably get ridiculed and rubbished and I will rightly go back
> to lurking, where I should of stayed in the beginning.
Ridiculing is not appropriate behaviour here and it should not happen. I'm glad
you're posting but you need to take input on board, that's all...
FUT set to just trains.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
44 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
|
|
|
|
